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