Chrysler: Who's Going to Own It?

Obama, akin to typical liberal positions, blamed speculators for the failure of the auto maker giant, Chrysler; not the unappealing passenger cars, dismal quality, little technology, minimal international operations. The Financial Times this morning said that "Obama laid blame for the bankruptcy filing at 'a small group of speculators.'" This small group of speculators, hedge fund managers, blocked an out of court negotiation to trade almost 7 billion of debt for 2 billion in cash. That sounds like a no-brainer to me. It's like saying "oh, you got a check from your parents for a thousand dollars, great, I'll give you $286 in cash for it." I think the problem with situations like this is the numbers are so inconceivable to the average person, we lose the reality of the numbers' significance.

So what is the significance of these bad speculators who refused to accept a third of their due money? Chrysler files for chapter 11. Now this does not equate a "Going out of Business Sale" or a "We're Closing for Good; Up to 90% Off." What it actually means is that Chrysler will have to restructure and make some changes. (see specifics here.) One of the significances however of this chapter 11 filing, is that finally the Unions will have to understand the economics of their organizations.

Unions were established with a worthy mission: to protect workers from harsh and unfair practices of employers. In the beginning of industrialization these institutions were needed. Employers followed horrible ethical standards, thereby necessitating worker organization for individual rights and freedoms. Now, however, lawmakers have passed enough legislation protecting individuals for abusive treatment, the only function Unions serve is contract negotiation. And given the basics, such as leave, breaks, maximum number of hours etc., is negotiated in Congress, really all these Unions negotiate is the pay scale and frequency at which increases are given.

It behooves the Union representatives to negotiate the best wages for their constituents, given they are paid via a percentage of the employees wage. For example, let's say I am a Union representative and I am responsible for negotiating my local chapters' upcoming contract renewal. Let's assume the average employee is making $30.00/hour and I'm making 4% of that through dues and fees, if I negotiate a 7% increase, by threatening strikes or performance slowdowns if I don't receive it, by default my earnings rise 7%. This leaves the Union contract negotiators subject to similar ethics standards once abused by employers. If, still being that union contract negotiator, I need to put an addition onto my house to accommodate my needed bar, I fight to the death for that 7%. Maybe I get 7, maybe I get 5, but if they refuse all of it, my greed puts the company at a halt until, "We, the disenchanted employees, receive our fair share from the Big Bad Employer/Corporation."

Aside from the potential greed and ethics violations by the Unions they also boast their ability to command a significantly greater wage for their "protected" workers. The graph to the right illustrates the Unions boasting and the UAW's website proclaims the ability to command, on average, $11.03 per hour more that can the non unionized auto worker companies. According to the UAW website: "Union workers earn more. Wages and benefits for the average union worker in the private sector totaled $36.65 per hour in September 2008, compared to $25.92 an hour for the typical non-union worker." This may all seem pretty good; but really, is it?

Again according to the UAW website, I found that they have "approximately 710,000 active members and over 500,000 retired members in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico." These million plus employees from UAW "represent skilled trades and production workers at General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler. In addition, the UAW represents several thousand salaried employees — including engineers, designers and draftsmen — at DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors." That said, we have to wonder what is really going on. The UAW has some of the highest paid employees in the industry; they have more than a million people represented; and they have contract negotiators upping the price of wages, what does this all equate, artificially inflated wages and drainage on corporate P&E.

The London School of Economics, one of the leading institutions for producing economists, reports that labour unions: "raise wages; reduce employment; reduce profits; and where capital they would also reduce investment." What this is essentially saying, if you believe the economists at the 66th highest ranked school of economics in the world, is that Unions are a cause of great disaster in businesses and the workforce. One of the greatest thinkers of economics came from this school, Friedrich Hayek, nobel prize winner and inspiration to Reagan and Thatcher; there is little proof that Lady Thatcher's union busting days and Reagan's economic plans didn't provide great prosperity. So if great schools are producing information like this against unions, how does that relate to what Obama said regarding Chrysler?

I'm arguing that it isn't "a small group of speculators" that caused their bankruptcy, it was Union greed and less than desirable products that have brought this 84-year-old company to its knees. The irony that some may fail to see; I did, my coworker pointed it out, is now the UAW, those promoters of institution crippling policies, by artificially increasing wages, own 55% of the company.

I feel for all the workers who suffer at the expense of this once useful, now failed institution we call labor unions. I can't help but chuckle, however, at the paradox. UAW will have to figure out how to earn a profit by cutting costs, and simultaneously maintaining their proud, puffed chest and saying that they employ roughly a million people who make more than market priced earnings.

Wages are paid by the consumer. That's what Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian School economist argued in his book, Planning for Freedom. (You can read the excerpt here.) Doesn't it then sound redundant for UAW teamsters to negotiate wage increases when the organizations are going to turn the cost back to the consumer?

Behold, Our New Savior; Real or Failure?

April 29, a day that will live in infamy. Union Square in New York City will unveil a "crowned" image of President Barack Hussein Obama on April 29, reinforcing the stereotype that the Messiah has come and our day of reckoning is near. All hail Him; He who is holier than thou; He who will lift the United States from its terrible, humility void, worldly image. Yes, He, the most humble of us all, He who refuses to read anything but a teleprompter for fear that he wont see the faces of His servants (critics thought Bush was bad for making up words, Obama can't do that, no jokes, no "fill in the blank" until the people realize they made an error in the prompter position; too bad).



There seems to be quite a bit of Church and State unification from a party that so avidly denounces its presence in government. So why is there a resurgence in Obama iconography?

This week marks Obama's first 100 days in office and the verdict is still out on whether he's doing a great, good, fair, poor, or horrible job as Commander in Chief. It isn't surprising that the Washington Post sees his tenure as positive thus far. The article on Sunday April 26 said "Obama off to a Solid Start," according to polls. Frankly though, I don't understand how the Post can simultaneously report this and have another article saying "A Hundred Anxious Days...Obama Supporters...Going From Fired Up to Tired Out."

I also don't see how there can still be claims that Obama is doing well when you look at the net changes in approval. Rasmussen tracks the POTUS performance on a daily basis, and Obama's is less than stellar. Between January 21 and today there is a net increase in total disapproval of 14% and a net decrease in total approval of 10%, but worse, there is a 23 point drop in the Presidential Approval Index. MSNBC has also done a poll asking readers to give Obama a grade. When World Net Daily wrote their associated article, 60% of the 110,000 responders gave Obama an "F!" (I got a lot of those in high school and you really have to work hard to get them.) That same questionnaire now breaks down 3.25 million responders, 37% gave an "A," 38% an "F;" there were 12% "D's," 7 "B's," and 4.5% "C's."

Regardless what all the skewed news services say, Obama's losing approval and supporters. Obama is also starting to have his beloved media, like CNN, ask the tough questions he never imagined or wanted. This, to me says he's failing. If Obama makes promises he can't keep and subsequently breaks them, he's doing his constituents a disservice. Now that the media is turning, it wont be long before Obama has to ask approval of his agenda rather that telling America what he's doing.

I want to end this post with a great quote from a great man, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. I hope Obama can heed this advice and I hope all constituents follow it through the electoral process. If we fail at this, we have failed as a nation and certainly we, as a country, would face dissolution.


“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson

Stimulus Status; Success or Flop?

Today, world news is clamoring about mayhem and chaos related to the financial state of nations. In Jamaica, the government deployed the army as a disaster prevention measure before they announced "tax increases on gasoline, cigarettes and other consumer items."In 1999 riots erupted and 9 were killed when a gas tax was introduced. The Times online states "EDF Strikers Cut Power to French Homes" in an attempt to gain more salary from the French government and "to push back the capitalist logic which has crept into the company;” all an apparent attack on perceived failures of capitalism. Apparently as a reaction to Germany's declaration that GDP will shrink 6% in 2009, The Telegraph declared "Germany's slump risks 'explosive' mood as second banking crisis looms." The Social Democrats presidential candidate claims that "'the mood could turn explosive" over the next three months unless the government takes drastic action;"

So what kind of drastic action do these countries need to take?

Joe Biden claimed "we do believe that this [the stimulus package] is what is necessary to get the engine going again in the States." POTUS postulated that such an "unprecedented crisis" "calls for unprecedented action!"

World citizens have now seen what this unprecedented action is. The Obama administration is now responsible for engaging every man woman and child in the U.S. in debt unfathomable for the entirety of their existence. Team Obama, Geithner, Reid and Pelosi has now committed us to $12.8 trillion which will take decades to pay off.

So what's the consensus of the stimulus package?

Geithner, with apparently nothing better to do, wrote in the financial times Thursday, that the "economy has shown signs that the worst of the recession may be easing." Well this is GREAT news! It's call for celebration. So how'd it happen? The stimulus must be working, right? Well not exactly.

According to this morning's Wall Street Journal, "Stimulus Spending Gets a Slow Start, GAO Finds." Apparently "states had yet to spend 'significant amounts'" of their money. Only three states, South Dakota, California and Illinois, have completed the application to receive the "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund" (of course Illinois has). A meager $49 billion is set to go to the states and communities by September 30. Most wont get the majority of their money, $108 billion, until FY 2010 and the remaining $123 billion for states and communities wont fully have trickled out until 2016. Please see this page for details.

So what are the reasons Geithner can say the "economic downturn may be slackening?" It certainly doesn't appear to be from the stimulus package. So where's it coming from? I would argue that this is a direct result in Adam Smiths argument that there's an invisible hand in economics that helps the market move. I would also argue that Joseph Stiglitz is completely wrong with his statement that the invisible hand "is often not there."

The economy is rebounding. We can see evidence of this in market performance; we can see it in increased sales of some consumer goods. What is not happening however is the economy rebounding tremendously from increased spending or from the stimulus package. Recently Obama decided he was going to petition members of his cabinet to use both sides of their paper, shake pens to get all the ink out, and even reuse coffee grounds in an effort to save money. Obama would show more of a gesture by taking one for the team and announcing he's suspending his salary for a year. In case your interested and to fully comprehend the size of a trillion dollars and what Obama proposed cut, see the chart to the right.

Robert Gibbs Flubs Question on Spending

This video accompanies the article I wrote yesterday. Gibbs clearly states that $100 million dollars is a huge amount of money. Yet when asked how he could say several weeks ago that 8 billion was minuscule, he turned into a true politician and lied.

His response was: "it all adds up." Sounds to me like a double standard.

What Did You Say? Cut Spending? OK, Only a Fraction Though

Ding, Dong, Ding, Dong, sound the bells! Play the victory song Obama is listening! Well, maybe, but certainly not sufficiently. This morning Obama heeded the cries of hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country who demanded an end to the Obama spending spree by telling his cabinet members to cut the budget $100 million dollars.

Wow, $100 million!

Lets look at $100 million dollars. The picture to the right is of $100 million dollars. This seems like a lot of money. If I found that in my basement I'd be pretty happy. Most of us wouldn't be able to spend it in a lifetime...well maybe I could but not without a lot of work. I may have to find an island to buy, several yachts, and a few exotic sports cars. I'd have enough to throw a few million to my closest friends; you're welcome. This is what Obama decided to cut from the current budget.

Now lets look at a trillion dollars. A trillion is a little more than a hundred million. This is the amount Obama spent with one signature to get the banks lending again. The second picture to the right is of a trillion dollars. You may have to click on it for the full effect but the same man featured above drooling over his pallet of cash is dwarfed next to the warehouse of money represented here. This is 1/12 of what Obama has promised groups, organizations and industries of yours, mine and our children's future.

Again I'll mention the Congressional Budget Office's estimation that in 2019 we'll be putting forth 80 some percent of GDP to pay our national debt. And all Obama can do is cut 100 million!? If we need national defense to protect our precious resources Obama wants to give away to the Iranians, Cubans and Venezuelans we wont be able to put 80+ percent toward debt. We currently spend about 6% on education, about 5% on defense, and about 7% on health care. That's almost the remaining 20%. So what about infrastructure, interest, transportation, emergency relief, humanitarian aid, paying government employees, our World Bank, IMF, U.N. promises or anything else? Well I guess in the years coming they'll just have to wait.

Let's look at the actual numbers. One hundred million: 100,000,000, okay; one trillion: 1,000,000,000,000, yikes! 10,000, one hundred millions, equals one trillion. So ten thousand countries with one hundred million people, equals 1 trillion. Maybe a better perspective: there are apparently 3,873,000,000 bricks in the great wall of China, at that rate there would have to be 258 great wall's to reach 1 trillion bricks. The state of Indiana is about 1 trillion square feet. The new Colts stadium is 1.8 million square feet, which means you could put almost 56 into the 100 million square feet, then 10,000 of those into the whole state of Indiana. In all you could have 56,000 new Colts stadiums; wow would Payton Manning have a field day. Where would we put them? Anyway, you get the idea.

Needless to say 100 million is a pathetic number when looking at the total. And I only used 1 trillion as my reference, imagine if it were the 12.8 that Bloomberg estimates.

I would have to concede a little credit though if I felt the policies of spending us out of a recession at the expense of future generations were working, but really they aren't. Lets look at the banking industry. We'll use a conservative number and say of the 12.8 trillion promised thus far, only four trillion goes directly to the Banks. And given 2008's GDP was 14.2 trillion dollars, that's a tremendous influx of capital; almost 1/3 more. From that huge investment, we would assume capital is beginning to flow like wine, right. Wrong!

This morning's Wall Street Journal says that of the 21 banks receiving TARP money, 19 show a 23% decrease in new loans from October when the program began. In addition, of those 21 banks receiving money, there was a 4.7% decline in new loans between January and February.

I'd also concede credit if another benchmark to measure success were showing signs of improvement. Currently the jobless claims are almost as high as they have been since the Carter administration. If we look at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, they show 2/3 of all losses have been in the last 5 months, during the heaviest of spending. In March the Department of Labor reported a loss of 633,000 jobs and analysts say that the stimulus package will "only slow the pace of job losses."

Spending $12.8 trillion dollars doesn't seem like a viable solution. Neither does Obama's decision to trim a measly $100 million off the budget. It may be something, and critics will argue to give credit for that, but more can be done. What Obama needs to do is reevaluate his policies to conserve capital. He needs to spend it as if there weren't an unlimited supply. Obama needs also to welcome the payback of funds by corporations such as JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, TCF and others with no stipulations or restrictions; currently this isn't happening.

Obama, watch your step or you're going to be replace in a, short for you, long for us, four years. Certainly there will be an end to your attempted socialism in 2010.

Tax Day Tea Party...Lessons Learned.

Obama says he gets it. He gets why a couple thousand people gathered in front of his, well actually, our house yesterday and countless more gathered across the nation. But frankly, I think Obama and his advisers have missed the whole point entirely.

In this mornings Wall Street Journal, Obama is said to have seen the calls of the constituents and decided to reform the "monstrous tax code" with one plan being so that 40% of Americans wont have to file income tax. He claims that this break will be in addition to the break that came with the stimulus bill where taxes are supposedly cut for 95% of Americans, and that should suffice the protesters across the nation.

I don't think that the people protesting though are as concerned about current taxes as they are about perceived taxes from the Socialists hefty spending agenda. In the three long months Obama has been in office, he and his cronies, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, have "lent or committed $12.8 trillion dollars" to different programs. These facts are horrific and this is what has people taking to the streets. By 2019, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obama's spending will reach 82% of GDP. This essentially says 82% of GDP in 2019 will not go towards education, infrastructure, national defense or anything other than paying off debt. It is the fear that our future generations will have to pay this off, reducing their standard of living, reducing the possibility of their prosperity, and reducing more of the marginal people into poverty given product inflation and currency devaluation. Ultimately, to pay for all this, people will have significantly higher taxes.

This is why people took to the streets! Not because they want simplification of the tax code.

Obama claims he sympathizes with us all. But really, how can he? Yesterday it became known, because of congressional law, what the Obamas made in 2008. The Obama's 2008 tax return (read here) shows the two earning roughly $2.7 million. Are these the earnings of a man who can relate to the average person? (Just as an aside; although all SSN's would be blocked for security reasons, careful examination of the 1040 shows where Malia, Natasha and Michelle's were whited out. There are even remnants of Michelle's numbers but Barack's area is completely clear, as if there was never a SSN listed. Rather interesting!)

Obama's exuberant earnings place him over and above the ability to sympathize with an ordinary citizen. I think he lives in a mythical dream world where all is bliss. What Obama really needs to do though is come back to reality, hear the calls of the people and quit spending so much money.

RightWing Radical...A New DHS Report!

On April 7th, 2009 the Department of Homeland Security issued a new report (can be read here) indicating that RightWing terrorists or extremists are gaining ground and need to be watched or diffused.

Within the first paragraphs, the report indicates that "the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment." Nowhere in the document is it stated that the policies of the new radical Leftwing President are the reasons for a resurgence in radicalization and recruitment.

The document does define, however, the term rightwing extremism as "those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state and local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely." Essentially this definition encompasses conservatives, libertarians, socially liberal conservatives, free market economists or, frankly, anyone that favors the Constitution of the United States of America.

The 10th Ammendment clearly gives power to the States over the federal government. It reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This was what we were supposed to have; a federalist government that provides power to the people and the States while limiting that of the Federal branches. Where is this administration coming up with this stuff? When will it end?

Under the Legislative and Judicial Drivers section, DHS warns that those clinging to their guns and religion should be watched more closely because:

"Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises."

I think the administration is forewarning us that they plan an attack on our rights declared in the amendments of the constitution. This wouldn't be a surprise given we learned throughout the campaign that Obama feels our constitution is a living breathing document, one in need of adjustments.

I head this morning a couple of federal defense attorneys saying that "no Democrat wants a gun law legislation battle because they'd lose key interior states." But, if a new report shows that the radicals toting the guns are a threat to society because they are maliciously reacting to economic downturn or the historic election of the first African-American president, legislators can argue that it's for the protection of the majority.

My personal views are that this administration is going too far. We thought Bush invaded our personal liberties with the "Patriot Act;" this radical Liberal leftwing terrorist named Obama is worse. Obama is destroying our freedom and limiting our inherent rights as citizens of the U.S. Regardless of his skin color or the economic situation, Obama is making bad choices for the country. These bad choices making the country worse are why people are reacting to Obama and if he continues along this path, we'll have a totalitarian state.

Do you regret voting for Obama? I would if I'd voted for him!

The U.S. Department of Mis-Education

Today, an extremely frightening survey was released by Rasmussen Reports. The survey asked a very simple question: "Which is a better system - capitalism or socialism?" Apparently this sampling of adults feel that Capitalism is only marginally better than Socialism. This report states that of the 1000 surveyed only 53% felt Capitalism was superior. This number compares with 20% that favored Socialism and 27% that are unsure (the margin of error was small, +/- 3% and with a 95% confidence level).

I find these statistics scary! What's scarier, however, is that of those 30 years old and younger, the findings are even more favorable to Socialism. The same survey reports that only 37% prefer Capitalism while 33% prefer Socialism and 30%are undecided. This is a stark contrast to those over 40 who "strongly favor Capitalism," leaving the remainder, only 13% to feel Socialism is the better form of Economy.

I think this report is crucially significant to a couple of things. One: thanks to the Great President Ronald Reagan, the horrors and failures of Socialism under the Iron Curtain are being forgotten. Two: The United States Department of Education is an utter failure and should be abolished.

We'll start with the Department of Education. In 1979 Public Law 96-88 was signed into effect thereby creating the U.S. Department of Education (USDE). USDE began operation under the Carter administration May 4, 1980 and has been a failure in the proper education of our youth ever since. Our students Math and Science scores are dropping, and this is not just a result of Bush's policies. In another report of data gathered over a long span, literacy scores are shown declining in science drastically, compared to other nations. If this is true for Math and Science, certainly students are failing to see the negative aspects of a socialist economic system which greatly incorporates both.

How can our students understand the negative aspects of Socialism if the educators are failing to teach these two basic fundamentals of economics; math and science? Are we to believe that they didn't learn it either? If we look at when this decline started, most likely we'll be led to the 1970's and then the implementation of the USDE. The 1960's gave us innovation to put a man on the moon. We created the Hydrogen bomb 9despite the feeling of this, it was a great feat). We constructed some of the worlds tallest and best designed buildings. All these inventions indicate that we certainly had innovation through a solid understanding of math and science.

One reason for failure to appreciate the Capitalist system over Socialism is thanks to the Great Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan took an aggressive approach with the former Soviet Union and exposed the shortages and gaping holes in their system of economy. If Reagan hadn't brought down the Iron Curtain people would still have a general fear that communism was about to reach our backyard and they'd do anything they could to understand it and try to stop it. This may have lowered the sympathies of Socialism but would have worsened the living conditions of those living under it.

Thanks to Reagan, though, we don't have the Iron Curtain anymore, but unfortunately the education system isn't picking up the slack in educating our youth on the importance and significance of Capitalism vs. Socialism. Many will argue that the fundamental difference of these two can be summed up with a phrase: Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome.

These may seem similar but they are completely different. The main difference is that the Equality of Opportunity is dedicated to have all participants in life equal at birth. There is no difference in any social aspect imaginable. If you were born poor, you have all the opportunities as anyone. If you were born rich, you still have to prove yourself to achieve your own success. On the other hand we have the Equality of Outcome that says no matter what happens in life all participants need to finish equally. If you were born poor, or of slave dissent, we need to compensate you for that. If some governmental institution determines that you are disadvantaged based on skin color, you need assistance.

The Capitalist system allows anyone who works hard great success. Through taxes, those who succeed repay the system supporting the institution for more innovators. The Socialist systems, on the other hand, allows anyone wanting the ability to enjoy the gracious givings of the government without repayment. This infinite giving requires finite dollars and if there is no incentive to work hard to repay the system, it can't be sustained. Additionally, if there is great incentive to receive free handouts from the government, why not?

In the case of the United Soviet Socialist Republics, the perpetual inefficiency of the governments attempted economic planning and the consistent no cost to the recipient acceptance of goods, forced bankruptcy and system unraveling. If the U.S. continues to allow the Department of Education to exist and determine curriculum for our future generations, we are going to continue on a path of mathematically, scientifically and economically illiterate generations. This illiteracy will eventually lead us to a state of Socialism and, thus, a dismal decay of our economic support structure ending our prosperity as we know it.

All Hail The New King In Town: Obama Flubs Foreign Policy

­­­When Obama decided to start smearing Sarah Palin for her inexperience in Foreign Policy, did it ever occur to him that maybe he'd better get it right?

Apparently not!

­
­
­
This video demonstrates the latest in blunders from President Obama (you can see the previous ones here and here). A bow, you may think is simple; the Japanese do it all the time. Isn't it just a cultural difference? No! This is crucially significant! Yes, the Japanese bow because of culture, but the Saudi's do not. The Saudi's only bow to the King signifying allegiance and inferiority. The U.S. abandoned this custom when the 13 colonies declared independence from The King in 1776.

According to the Associated Content News, the act of bowing, in the Middle East especially, "indicates submission" and acknowledges that the one "being bowed to is the master." If the act of bowing is fit for a King, the signators of the declaration would have viewed Obama's actions a disgrace. The signators claimed "the history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." Read the Declaration here.

If you think I'm wrong, you should read the 1344 comments (at time of posting) on the Politico article indicating concern that the President of the free world is giving up U.S. sovereignty to many in the Muslim world. Indicating his support for Turkey's succession to the E.U., stating that "The United States has been enriched by Muslim[s]­," bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, and finally having "direct engagement" with Iran over its nuclear program, what is this man doing to our nation and the soverignty many, excluding him, have worked hard to achieve? Let us not endure 8 years of this insanity. Let us regain control of our nation by electing more great Americans to congress in 2010. We need to stop Obama before we no longer have our country.

Obama Mania and Racism

­­I love Facebook©, it's such a great utility and there are so many, quick ways to communic­ate with family, friends and, yes, even enemies.­

Last weekend, I posted a picture of the "Chia Obama" on my Facebook page and one would have thought WWIII broke out. I thought the idea was hilarious. Walking around DC anyone can see that everyone has jumped onto the Obama waggon bound for hell: there are teeshirts, keychains, stocking hats, bobble heads, an inflatable punching bag, novelty dollar bills­, ­even the Obama Sock Monkey.

The place where I initially discovered the SockObama apparently wrote to the manufacturers asking them their intent; this was the reply:


Similarly, I imagine the manufacturer of the Chia Obama wanted nothing more than to capitalize on the surge in popularity of our current celebritized President.

This all brings me to a very interesting question.

Have we become so sensitive in this country that we are willing to sacrifice our rights of innovation to appease those that have a loud voice-or more cronies on K street? When will it end? Will we eventually have the President control the production of goods so as to avoid any infraction of someones personal feelings? Is this not Communism?

­BET responded to Walgreens pulling the Chia Obama much the way I would or anyone else able to see humor in any Chia Pet. They didn't articulate an opinion and asked the views of the reader. Although no one has commented directly, the article says some "people are getting just a little too touchy when it comes to feelings about the nation’s firstAfrican-American president."

Evan Sayet has become one of my favorite speakers and he specifically addresses this issue. He recently spoke at the Heritage Foundation and the title of his discussion was Hating What's Right: How the Modern Liberal Winds Up on the Wrong Side of Every Issue­. Sayet argues that the answer is simple and that Liberals are

"raised to believe that rational and moral thought are acts of bigotry and that as "multiculturalists" all cultures are equally right and equally valid, then, in the words of Dinesh D'Souza, the multiculturalist must DE FACTO become an apologist for tyranny. It only follows, then, that those to whom discriminating moral and intellectual thought is a hate crime, that they must explain ALL evil,failure and wrong and attack all that is good, right and successful.It's no surprise, then, that those who see the greatest enmity from the Neo-Liberal are the good, right and successful be they the Jews or Christian America."

Event the Washington Post, not an unbiased newspaper, featured an article with Jeff Johnson, a black radio and TV political commentator, who said stop seeing "Obama the personality" and see "Obama the president." "Otherwise all you're being is a political-celebrity groupie instead of a citizen...It starts with acknowledging he's my president, and not my homie."

­Once people do this they can get past the fear of being called a racist for saying his policies are horrible or for laughing about a Chia Pet made in his honor. Let's face it, Obama and his followers have elevated him to an untouchable status. Now that the average American has realized the honeymoon's over and can see what real policies he's using to destroy the country, we had better get ready for an onslaught of criticism - and being critical doesn't make one a racist.­­­

Hail to the Ch-ch-ch-chief!

What a great country...there's no place else I'd rather live than in a place where we can have a Chia Obama! I ordered mine, it should fully grown by Easter!

Newspaper Bailout or Anti Anti-Trust Protection? The U.S. Mimic of the Russian Oligarchs.

In the 1890's Congress passed what is know as the Sherman Antitrust Act. This Act was written in the best interests of the consumer by encouraging marketplace competition. The main way it protected consumers was by eliminating a company's' ability to fix prices, rig bids, and divide territories to secure their dominance in a geographical region.

At the onset, the two biggest trust busters were Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft. Since then, governments around the world have been establishing laws to protect the consumer from cartels, monopolies and oligarchs. The European Union has a very distinct Competition Law that recently won a suit against Microsoft for approximately $1.5 billion and in the past prevented mergers of giants General Electric and Honeywell.

Some areas haven't been nearly as successful in protecting consumers like the U.S. or Europe. The 1960's brought us OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, whose 12 nations control two thirds of all oil reserves and nearly 40% of the worlds oil production; remember what happened in '08 with the price of oil?. The 1970's brought us the Medellín and Cali drug cartels which were exported to Mexico and present problems there now. Finally, probably the worst case, the 1990's, with the fall of the Soviet Union, brought us the Russian Oligarchs. A 2005 report shows that in 2001, of the 32 industrial sectors that make up 50% of Russia's GDP, the Russian Oligarchs (about 30 people) control an approximate 40% share of sales. This means that the 32 Oligarchs control about 25% of Russia's economy and therefore have a greater influence over government actions. See this article.

What does all this have to do with Newspapers you ask?

In March of 2009 Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice urging Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General to ease U.S. antitrust laws and let newspapers merge, staving imminent bankruptcy. Pelosi writes:

“I am confident that the Antitrust Division, in assessing any concerns that any proposed mergers or other arrangements in the San Francisco area might reduce competition, will take into appropriate account, as relevant, not only the number of daily and weekly newspapers in the Bay Area, but also the other sources of news and advertising outlets available in the electronic and digital age, so that the conclusions reached reflect current market realities,”

Pelosi's insistent that Holder allow these newspapers to merge and reduce competition because there's a decline in readership and she wants to protect her prized Liberal media source.

The paper Pelosi is referring to is San Francisco's The Chronicle. And like many industries in these tough economic times, this newspaper is struggling with less and less circulation. Now aside from the economic downturn there could be other reasons for their hardship.

One: The liberals won the White House and liberal papers slamming GW isn't needed any more. Oh you think there isn't a bias in newspapers. Think again! In 2004, the New York Times published an article who's author said, referring to policy issues: "if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."

Two: People have already become disgusted with the gloating and in-your-face arrogance of media such that people don't want to subscribe to it any more. Here are the reports that show conservative news sources have increased their market share since the election and liberal ones have declined.

Three: Newspapers have thought themselves immune to market cycles given peoples desire to read them as the only news source. The advent, then proliferation of the internet and websites have become the demise of less than business savvy Editors and Directors who still seek the Big One to sell papers, like the Washington Post's, The Watergate Story. What Newspapers need to do is follow Murdoch and run their newspapers like a business.

Murdoch, among other things, is owner of a few newspapers in the world like The Times of London, the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal and others in Australia and Britain. These papers he runs like a business, with a profit motive. When discussing financial matters on a television interview, Murdoch said: "People reading news for free on the Web, that's got to change."Although there's no foreseeable bailout for failing newspapers, with Congress' current ambitions, I wouldn't write it off the list of possibilities.

This brings us to a critical question. When Congress acted to protect consumers from the repercussions of Monopolistic greed, did they intend to have antitrust laws rewritten to suffice the agenda of one group of lawmakers? No, the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prevent the formation of cartels who wish to see their organizations dictate prices rather than market forces. If we rewrite antitrust laws to allow newspapers to merge, will they eventually become such that they too are too big to fail, allowing a similar fate to GM and AIG?

The Founding Fathers intended the U.S. to be a constitutional republic with specific, separate branches of government, each able to limit the others power over the people. If this government allows the emergence of oligarchs through revamping antitrust laws, one branch, the legislative, certainly will become a slave to the oligarchs and the laws they want to implement to protect their market share.

Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, this is a bad idea. Do not alter antitrust laws granting organizations the ability to merge instead of accepting bankruptcy, that's what it's there for.

"Her Royal Highness..." Would You Like a Gift? It's Only for England!

Yesterday the Obama's made a fool of themselves and our country, yet again.

We'll start with the gifts...

Giving gifts is nice, but this is now the second one that is practically useless to a very prominent person in the United Kingdom. Two weeks ago, when Obama snubbed Brown by having an informal press conference, he also snubbed him by giving a set of DVDs that, aside from the U.K.'s Mail newspaper saying it was "a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks," was unplayable and almost unviewable by the nearly blind Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, gave the President glorious gifts, fit for a world leader of an historic nature-a pen holder made from the wood of an ancient anti-slave ship, the framed commission of the same ship and a first edition of the biography of Churchill-a book all free marketeers hope Obama reads.

While the gifts from Mr. Brown were fitting and to be treasured for life, the ones from Obama show the general lack of understanding and compassion the Obama's have with others.

Now this could all be swept under the rug if it weren't for the Obama's visit with Her Majesty, the Queen Elizabeth II. In such horrific distaste, Obama presented the Queen an iPod loaded with: songs thought to be to the Queen's liking, but perhaps not; photos of her recent trip to the U.S., certainly similar to the ones her staff and accompanist would have taken for her; and, of course, podcasts of the now Presidents speeches as Senator and his inaugural address. One may think, well ok, this isn't too bad of a gift, but would the Queen even know what a podcast is? Well certainly she does! How, you ask? Well the Queen know because she already has one!

OK, ok, so you say I'm being to hard on the ole chap. I have to say, no, I'm not. Obama and the First buffoon are making more simple etiquette mistakes that if they'd have listened during briefings, they'd have known better.

First off Michelle, how about wearing full sleeves to greet someone with class. What did you wear the first time meeting Barack's parents; cutoffs that were strategically placed half way down your ass? No, probably not. I'm sure you dressed very "conservatively" if we can use the words Obama and conservative in the same sentence. Next, on Air Force One, when your debriefers tell you 'British etiquette says "you may not shake the queen's hand, only touch it briefly,"' does this give you any indication that you may all out HUG the Queen? What has happened to etiquette? Has it washed down your less than royal, royal throne now that you've taken office and can seemingly do anything you want? All I know is that our "Special Relationship" partners think that you broke royal protocol and that, ma' am, is a disgrace.

What say you Mr. President?

This visit reminds me somewhat of the movie, Love Actually. The President of the U.S. goes to Great Britain and meets with the Prime Minister...sound familiar? Sure, it's happening now. In the movie the situation that resulted from the "Special Relationship" meeting was followed with the P.M. standing up for Britain. But in real life, Gordon misses an opportunity to help his failing reputation and that of his Labour Party. Obama, parading around like he does, sticks his nose in the air and without thought says “We owe so much to England; that when you come here there’s that sense of familiarity, as well as difference, that makes it just a special place” (emphasis added).

Unfortunately Obama's statement wasn't in jest as one would think given April Fools Day and his great foreign experience and being well traveled. What it does do though is announce to all of Britain and the world that this arrogant president fails to recognize Whales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Ouch, what a jab to the jaw of many Brits, including Brown-a supporter of Obama's agenda and a Scot.

Obama has several more days on this trip. Toward the end he may find more support amongst his Muslim brothers in Turkey. For now though, it is apparent that Obama not only has a waning desire to please and continue our "Special Relationship" but that he has no intention of including all of Great Britain.

No Words, Just a Picture...it's Enough!

Source

Who's Corrupt? Another Democrat?

Over the weekend Rep. John P. Murtha , D-Pa. had an interview. Considering he's a member of congress, and a senior one at that, an interview isn't surprising. One thing though that may not be known is his history and a quote from that interview.

Murtha's history is known enough that he makes the top 20 of a list of corrupt politicians; you can view Murtha's record here. One of the main reasons he makes this list is his involvement in something called the Abscam scam. Basically the FBI established a bogus business called "Abdul Enterprises, Ltd" which they used as their front to offer great sums of money to politicians in exchange for political favors. Some of the political favors were money laundering, investment schemes and U.S. asylum. Because the FBI had no videotaped exchange of money with Murtha, they got him to roll on his cronies...other U.S. Senators. In exchange for his testimony, charges against Murtha were dropped and he was allowed to run for reelection to the U.S. Congress. His tenure now spans 3 decades.

Not necessarily related, but close, was Murtha's comment in an interview with The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last weekend. Murtha was quoted very distinctly as saying, “If I’m corrupt, it’s because I take care of my district.” Thank you Congressman Murtha. I am grateful that corruption has helped you take care of your district. What exactly have you done? Well Murtha has been able to secure $225 million in government grants to his PAC contributor, Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC). Contracts like these have helped CTC make their $125,000 PAC contribution to Mr. Murtha. This is just one example and it's very hard to figure exactly how many earmarks Murtha has generated for his district or his campaigns, but the title of the Post-Gazette article cited previously is: "Critics claim John Murtha is capitalizing on a corrupt system, but he's not apologizing."

When will this country wake up?

The "20 most corrupt members of Congress" report has both Republicans and Democrats, so neither is without fault. But his comments and this article also come at a time when Obama promised no earmarks: "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project" Obama, April 15, 2008.

So what do we do?

At the time of the Abscam, Senator Larry Pressler (R-SD) was called a hero by Walter Cronkite for refusing to be involved in the scam and reporting it to the FBI. Pressler scoffed and asked: "what have we come to if turning down a bribe is 'heroic'?"

If Obama is serious about earmarks, lets make penalties for them comparable to bribing a public official.

Funding Terrorists...

What who's doing that?

The Obama Administration!

By January, Obama has promised Guantanamo will be closed. What is interesting are the comments by the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. He says that some of the detainees will likely be released into the United States. What's worse is that he claims some will need assistance to "start their new lives." That's because, although we can allow our own citizens to live on the streets, we can't have terrorists there. Essentially, I see this as the U.S. doing their part to help finance terrorism.

Let's just wipe the last 8 years (at least) off the slate and put ourselves on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Who's the leader of the free market?

$97.4 billion. That's what the Auto industry has received to date from you and I.

What next?

Why not the auto parts manufacturers?

The White House, last Thursday, announced that they were going to give auto parts makers $5 billion because they haven't been paid by the industries receiving taxpayer money. Well that's not fair. We better make the playing field even. Take from the fiscally responsible you and I, and give to the squanders.

Well what about other car manufacturers, mainly European ones where socialism is rampant? Certainly BMW, Mercedes Benz and SAAB must be feeling the crunch as well. In last year's fourth quarter, BMW's net profit fell 89%. Daimler said it's February sales were down 25% from this time last year. SAAB, who "hasn’t had a profit in almost two decades and will be unprofitable in 2009," laid off workers and even filed for bankruptcy last month.

But what are our European Socialist counterparts doing compared to President Obama and our Democrat controlled Congress? Apparently the enterprise minister, Maud Olofsson, said '"The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories. "' Germany's Economy Minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, said "I personally think nothing of a direct stake of the state."

Wait, I'm getting confused here. Which statements are the European leaders making? Their giving the auto industry $97 billion and the leader of the free market is letting major manufacturers fail due to market forces, right? No. European nations are letting industries fail and the U.S. is providing taxpayer money. When did Obama start subscribing to socialist ideology? Oh yeah, that's right, most of his mentors were openly or overtly engaged in communism.

AMERICA'S enemies smell blood and it's type "O." By Ralph Peters

March 25, 2009
Last updated: 3:47 am
March 25, 2009
Posted: 1:00 am

AMERICA'S enemies smell blood and it's type "O."

All new administrations stumble a bit as they seek their footing. But President Obama's foreign-policy botches have set new records for instant incompetence.

Contrary to left-wing myths, I wasn't a fan of the Bush administration. (I called for Donald Rumsfeld to get the boot in mid-2001.) But fair's fair. Despite his many faults, Bush sought to do good. Obama just wants to look good.

Vice President Dick Cheney was arrogant. Vice President Joe Biden is arrogant and stupid. Take your pick.

Don't worry about the new administration's ideology. Worry about its terrifying naivete.

Consider a sampling of the goofs O and his crew have made in just two months:

China: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (you know that gal married to the Saudi hireling) crawled to Beijing to tell the party bosses that human rights don't matter. Our "relationship" is more important than freedom and human dignity.

Beijing's response? A staged military confrontation with an unarmed US Navy vessel; continued screw-America currency cheating; a renewed crackdown on dissidents and, yesterday, a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar.

Thanks, Hill. You're a sweetheart.

Pakistan: With viral corruption throughout and Islamist fanatics sweeping half of its territory, Pakistan's coming apart. Its Dem-adored prez tries to ban opposition parties and gut the judiciary. It has nukes and seethes with hatred of America. And Islamabad controls our primary supply route into Afghanistan, using it as an extortion tool.

Obama's response? Billions in new aid for Pak pols to pocket. We'd be better off handing the money to AIG to pay out more bonuses.

Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam. Am I the only American who remembers that candidate Obama had a plan to capture Osama bin Laden and fix our previous "mistakes" in Afghanistan? President Obama doesn't have a clue.

Iran: Obama tried to reach out, to talk. After all, talking got him to the White House. But America-bashing is what keeps Iran's leaders in office, it's their political essence. After 30 years of fierce hostility, hasn't anyone figured out that the senior mullahs need us as an enemy? Without the Great Satan America to blame, they'd have some real explaining to do to their homies. So O got the left-hand finger.

He wanted to chat with the Taliban, too. They told him he could stick it where the sun don't shine.

North Korea: Obama wanted a fresh start. North Korea's response? Threats of war with South Korea and the kidnapping of two American journalists. And the renewed pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, along with rocket tests.

Cuba: Obama would like to liberalize our relationship. The Castro boys told him to kiss off. They need an enemy, too. (Dear Mr. President: It's not always about us or how evil America is.)

Venezuela: Guess who else needs an enemy?

Mexico: The good news: Obama knows where it is on a map and recognizes that Mexico's government faces a narco-insurgency that threatens our country, too. His first action? Cave to the Teamsters, violate a lawful treaty on cross-border trucking, reignite fading anti-Americanism and undercut President Felipe Calderon.

Poland: Obama's stance on our bravest ally on the European continent? The Russians are more important than you are. He's sending the same message to Ukraine and Georgia.

Russia: Bolshie Biden, the commuting commissar, knows he's the man who can turn Russia into our best pal. After "Friend of Bill" Strobe Talbott tried and failed disastrously. And after poor W saw into Putin's soul, only to get his butt handed to him. "Uncle Joe" Biden has nothing to learn from past failures, though: He's got a re-set button.

Moscow's response to the Obama administration's bid for a new start? It threatens NATO members it once occupied and continues to back Iran's nuclear program. Plus, it bribes Kyrgystan to kick us off the critical-to-Afghanistan Manas airbase (then offers to help replace that supply lifeline, giving Russia a choke-hold on our troops).

Next, the Kremlin threatens massive re-armament and demands the abandonment of the dollar as the international reserve currency.

Obama's response? Push that re-set button again. And again.

At what point does naivete become cowardice?

As for our allies, Obama apparently needs them less than Bush did. O treated Britain's prime minister like the deputy Paraguayan veterinary inspector, and he blindsided the leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, Mexico and Canada on issues ranging from missile defense to trade. But he'd like them to take the Gitmo terrorists off our hands, please.

The one bright spot thus far has been Iraq, where Obama quickly tossed aside his campaign promises. The O-man doesn't want to be on the blame-line for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Baghdad. And his MoveOn.org supporters can throw all the tantrums they want. (Breaking news, folks: O's a professional pol, not the messiah . . . )

Apart from Iraq a success Sen. Obama did all he could to prevent his foreign policy's an instant wasteland. By comparison, the Carter administration is starting to look like a model of manly strength, courage and patriotism.

Ralph Peters recently became Fox News' first "strategic analyst."

Finally, SOME Fiscal Responsibility

The Hill reported yesterday that Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, told Congress NO to additional funding to battle the increasing crime on the border.

“What I have done is identify other activities that are less urgent ... to be able to move these resources where I think they are needed most.”

Finally someone in this Administration brings forth fiscal responsibility.

Scandalous: The Gate Keeper to Obama

Rahm Emanuel certainly skirted any major repercussions to his involvement in the Blagojevich scandal. But will he be able to do the same from what he knew about the Mortgage Giants Freddie Mac?

In 2000 Emanuel was appointed to the Board of Freddie Mac after helping Bill Clinton escape from the turbulent Lewinsky and Whitewater scandals. While at Freddie, for 14 months, Rahm did little to earn his $320,000 except to show up to 6 board meetings where they were "told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits."


The Obama Administration, once again is keeping true to a new openness and level of transperancy. Obama refused the Chicago Tribune access to board minutes during Emanuel's stint even though the Freedom of Information Act grants such access.

When will Obama make true his promises to the American people? When will we have integrity back in the White House and this Administration? We have swindlers, tax cheats and lobbyists, all whom Obama promised we wouldn't have. Maybe Obama Hoped we wouldn't have it. Maybe Obama's Change will come when he sees fit.

I don't want to wait! Lets send a message to this Administration that we wont accept these policies, vote for Tedisco in New York.

Insider Information

Senator Dodd knew more about the workings of AIG than he let on. His wife is the former Director of a subsidiary of AIG - IPC Holdings - where she attended more than 75% of the board meetings while working on the Audit and Investment Committee. When coupled with AIG donations to Dodd's campaigns Senator Dodd really must have had insider information.
Dodd's up for reelection in 2010...isn't it time to rid the Senate of dishonesty?

Schooling for Obama

Mr. Obama...these words ring true for you as well! You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.

What significance is a name?

I'm sure everyone alive when Kennedy was shot remembers exactly what they were doing at exactly the moment they heard the news. I'm sure people remember exactly what they were doing the morning of September 11. These are events not easily forgotten.

Does President Obama remember what he was doing that horrific morning? Were the then state Senator Obama's first thoughts, "America most have antagonized those 19 hijackers?"

My guess is no.

If I am correct, then what business does, now President Obama, have changing the name, "War on Terror" to, "Overseas Contingency Operation?"

If we revert to the Kennedy Administration we can see how relevant names were. Pobeda! This word is Russian and to the technical expert it's a SS-3 MRBM, but to the rest of us it's commonly referred to as medium range ballistic missile. If the Kennedy Administration had called it something else, and downplayed the terminology, who knows, Washington DC today may not exist.

Changing the name was a bad idea Mr. President! The act may be insignificant to you, but to some, like the terrorists who initially instigated this terminology, it means victory. We have not yet won the war on terror. We should not give this ground to those who threaten peace and stability in the world. I urge you, Mr. President, reconsider your decision.

The Road to Stagflation

The Obama Administration is spending wildly beyond the imagination of any conservative analyst I know. Last month, the spending started (excluding TARP) with H.R. 1, more commonly known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This supposed stimulus bill committed the American people to a $780 billion debt with one signature. Then came the $900 million Obama pledged to rebuild the Gaza strip after terrorists attacked the sovereign nation, Israel. Congress then passed the omnibus spending bill, to keep the government running for the remainder of the year. (I wont discuss Obama's pledge to eradicate bills with earmarks but then signed this one that contained the most ever; over 9000).

As of today, we now have another government agency; the Public-Private Investment Program, which will not only add nearly another $1 trillion to our debt, but will increase the powers of the President as well. The article, "Treasury's toxic asset plan could cost $1 trillion", indicates that the Secretary of the Treasury, under this new agency, can seize any failing firm large enough to ripple the economy sufficiently with the only permission needed being from the President and the Federal Reserve. Is this not a state allowed private market?

So much for our free market economy!

Anyway, back to finances!

The first time Geithner disclosed information about this plan, the market plummeted. Part of the decline was his inability to confidently address the media, but the rest came from the overwhelming lack of support for the program. Today's market response, thus far, has been overwhelmingly positive. At the time of this article the Dow is up over 350 points. This is good news, in the short run. Now banks are happy that they wont have the bad assets to contend with. But what about the spending for future generations?

Remember Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican that withdrew from consideration for Secretary of Commerce over "irresolvable conflicts on issues such as the stimulus package and the census?" Sunday, on CNN's "State of the Union" Gregg once again made an honorable decision; he claimed that the implications of Obama's ambitious agenda was "bankruptcy for the United States!"

Statements such as these are certainly an eye opener. Senator Gregg, before becoming Senator was a member of the House as well as the Governor of New Hampshire. If being governor of a state didn't give him credibility, certainly his experience as the Chairman on the Senate Budget Committee would provide ample time analyzing cost-benefit data and advising on the findings.

Maybe the current administration ought to heed his words and use caution when spending. We currently are in the midst of a great decline in GDP. Despite what some Liberals may tell you, Bush was great for our economy. For seven years we had growth (save right after 9/11...see graph.)

As a President who campaigned on the bettering of all his constituents, albeit through redistribution and heavy taxes for the rich, Obama needs to be mindful of his spending habits.

There is currently no end in sight for the contraction in GDP. Nor is there an end in sight for Federal Spending. Consumer prices are also creeping higher. As the dollar declines in value, (the dollar is declining because the Treasury is pumping trillions of newly made dollars into the economy), prices well seem to rise more. This occurrence is a phenomenon known as stagflation and it occurs when consumer prices rise due to discretionary spending simultaneously during a period of contraction in real GDP.

Stagflation is a dangerous situation and this administration, buy hyper-spending, is edging us closer and closer to it. This is the last thing the poor Obama worked so hard to satisfy with his rhetoric during the campaign needs when money's tight, or ever, for that matter.

I urge President Obama to be mindful of our money. Unlike the U.S. Government we cannot print more. Not that that's what should be done, it just seems to be the answer Obama has chosen for the exit strategy of the current economic crisis. I also urge the administration to remove inflationary pressures. I urge Obama to truthfully open the way for negotiation with his ideological counterparts; some have great ideas for improving the economy, such as Senator DeMint's "The American Option: A Jobs Plan That Works."

More Blunders

I know it's only right that the President have a sense of humor, but to what extent?
My last post discussed the blunders of the new President and some of the groups he's insulting or showing an emotional distance. Well on last night's 60 Minutes the President seemed scarily aloof with what's happening to the economy.

My thought is that this isn't your local comedy club Mr. President: we're not at Second City.
Please show some interest in your job and your constituents. Making fun of the Irish being drunken idiots and the mentally disabled Special Olympians bowling better than you is horrible, now, if that wasn't bad enough, you're minimizing the suffering of millions who've lost their jobs or homes. Many of us were not lucky enough to have signed a half million dollar book deal just days before taking the reigns of a country you seem determined to run into the ground.
Get a grip on your jokes. Learn to speak candidly without a teleprompter. Your predecessor could!

Obama Blunders

Thursday night on national television, Obama made the statement that his bad bowling was like the Special Olympics. What I want to know is when will Obama quit pretending that he is sympathetic to any groups sufferings? Last night he made fun of people with special needs.

Earlier this week, when he flubbed the introduction of Irish PM Cowen, Obama noted that the Irish better take caution, given the open bar, not to step in front of cameras without a lampshade...referring to the cliche that the Irish are nothing but drunken buffoons.
Earlier this month, the Obama administration enacted legislation that will stifle the economy, raise energy rates and enable irresponsible people to siphon your money to pay their mortgage...all this to the tune of about 2 Trillion dollars.
We're printing more money than we've ever printed. This will force the value of the dollar to all time lows. As a result, the main topic of the G-20 next month will be to remove the dollar as the worldly currency. Let's hope China doesn't call in their treasury notes because we're out of money.
In addition to the value of the dollar plummeting, GDP is shrinking and consumer prices are on the rise...what's this mean? Stagflation! This term no one wants to utter. With all this demand for our products and services will be shipped to foreign markets leaving us with less jobs, more debt, and a worthless currency to pay for it.
What can we do?
To start, we as Americans, need to contact our senators and representatives and tell them our dissatisfaction with the current administration and their new laws. We also need to become more active; join the National Tea Party Day, guaranteed there's one in your area. I'm sure there are more but the last I want to write about is education. The 2010 election is crucial to regain control of this country. Find out if your state has an election, then find out how your senator voted for the Recovery Act.