27 10 2008

It’s rather maddening. I’m sitting watching Lou Dobbs discuss the presidential campaign and his guests, which come from both sides of the aisle, are  just sitting and laughing as they talk about all the things the McCain campaign has brought out about Obama, and how none seem to stick. Obama’s advocate  doesn’t even dispute any of it. Dobbs finds some humor in Obama being called a “redistributor” now.


Sure, there is some bafflement about how come it took so long to dig out some of these things, and how Obama has more than his fair share of having his “coat-tail” hanging out on things. But the funny part is how nobody seems to care.


Obama does have more than his share of baggage. He lacks a real record, with no record of achievement at all. In fact, one of the very few bills he’s put out since he has been in the senate has been criticized by his own party. Nobody seems to care. He’s far far left of the mainstream on most every issue. Nobody seems to care. He has many many questionable associations. Nobody cares. That he is a socialist isn’t even questioned. Nobody cares. That his positions on the issues change almost daily…nobody questions at all.


In two years he’s earned the reputation as THE most liberal Senator. Not number two. Not number eight. Number 1. Nobody notices.


Barack Obama IS a socialist, and was mentored by a communist Frank Marshall Davis. He’s been involved with other socialist groups, walking the walk and talking the talk. When you talk to his supporters about these issues of concern, redistribution of wealth for instance, you will get some story about Joe the plumber not really being a plumber and how plumbers don’t make $250,000 a year… but they don’t answer the first thing about redistribution of wealth, what it means, and its effect. Obama gets a pass.


Obama says one thing, then his supporters say another, and when you question the difference between the two you get some abstract hope and promises answer about how your questioning of it all is actually racist and McCain has seven houses and Obama cares more than the others and kids sing and birds chirp and… you still don’t get a real answer. But nobody seems to mind.


Obama has been involved with a lot of what lead to our current economic conditions, working on ground level with groups that advocated the policies that directly lead to the situation. He lawyered on there behalf, and trained them. In two short years in the Senate he became a darling, earning the number two spot in receiving donations from those that brought us to this. He tells you that it’s the policies of “the last eight years” that got us into this mess, which is a bald faced lie. We buy it.


Obama, the democrat, says he’s gonna give you a tax cut. Schumer, the democrat, says don’t hold your breath… the term is four years so keep “hope” alive. Obama, the democrat, says he’s gonna go after Osama bin Laden, and steer our military onto the path that it needs to be. Barney Frank, the democrat, says he wants the military cut by 25%. Never mind we are dealing with some of the most threatening times and threatening regimes in a long long time. Swish…, right on by without a word…


Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, tells a closed door meeting that the world faces a threat from Obama being tested by some of these enemies that seek to do us harm. The response? Disbelief that Biden would have said such a silly thing, and how Biden has a habit of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time… Never mind that it’s most probably true. That part nobody seems to care about.


It’s all so frustrating.


In all fairness, some people do care, and care quite a bit… but is it enough. Hopefully, for the rest, they won’t ever have to care.



What’s that Joe?

21 10 2008

Back during the primaries Joe Biden, then candidate himself for the Democrats candidate for President, told America that Barack Obama wasn’t ready to be President of the United States. In fact he really didn’t know much about Obama, for in his opinion Obama just hadn’t done much of anything while in the Senate. He gave Obama’s best attributes as his looking nice and speaking well.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. … I mean, that’s a storybook, man.

…a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate. … I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”



Now, months later, Joe Biden is the selection to be the candidate for Vice President for the Democrats and Barack Obama’s running mate. Still Joe Biden tells America that Obama isn’t ready to be President of the United States.

And what Joe actually tells us is a good bit scary:

“Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate, …and he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”




Just what is Joe telling us here? That if Obama’s elected something big is going to happen? Something tragic? People are going to die? Just because those evil forces that we know exist out there in the world want to see just how weak Barack Obama is? This is terrible!


Not only is Joe Biden predicting terrible happenings somewhere in the world, he’s insinuating that our response will at best be misunderstood, even by our own people! Worrisome news indeed. And coming from his running mate at that!


Sadly I believe Biden to be right. Joe Biden is prone to run his mouth and that has gotten him into trouble numerous times, misstating facts and even stealing a line or two from someone else as his own… but here I believe him.


Obama is inexperienced. Obama is naive. And I don’t trust Obama’s judgment on responding to a tragic event as far as I can throw him. Some of what he has put into words for public consumption on his thoughts about our security and defense doesn’t send a tingle up my leg, but a shiver down my spine.


Maybe that’s why a poll of our servicemen and women found the support for John McCain to be about 68%. Even running about 63% of the Hispanics in the military supporting McCain, with only the black military voter supporting Obama.  But even among blacks in the military support for McCain is about 20%, far higher than the general public, which is very telling to me.


It’s an evil world and one that we must remain vigilant in. Change does sound good, especially after such a long and trying time as we’ve had with Iraq and the war on terror, but that war is not over. Those people that sought to do us harm back in September of 2001 still seek to do us harm today.


Do we choose inexperienced idealism over sound tried and true leadership at a time such as this? I hope not, for we have so much at stake, and so much to lose.


Anyway, we played that change game two years ago and how’d that work? Not too good!


There are those during this campaign that seek to distract us from these issues and interject side issues and even outlandish meanings to remarks in order for you and I not to focus on the importance of our future leadership. Even over the last few days throwbacks to a different era have been brought up to try a scare naïve people into fearful reactions. Socialism is very real and it’s a very real part of Barack Obama’s upbringing and philosophy, but out in Kansas City they try to tell us Socialist is some sort of “code word” for “Black”! Do people not already know Obama is African American or “Black”?


To bring that up is to disguise what Obama is actually all about. The Obama campaign has been very good at disguising what Obama is all about. Hopefully the clouds will part and the light of truth will shin on this campaign. And maybe people, good people too, will wake up and see who the man before them truly is. The truth is out there already… Google it.  


Shame on you Lewis Diuguid. Shame on you for using those scare tactics of the past.





Colin Powell

19 10 2008

One wonders sometimes about the motivations of what people sometimes do. Is generational “change” more important than, say, freedom? We’ve fought for a number of years, spilled the blood of our youth, spent vast sums of our national treasure, to prevent what we are about to allow to happen to our country. We thought that we had won that fight. We dropped our guard for just a few, relatively short years… and all that we fought to preserve we now seem to choose to give away.

Has it really been so long that we forgot what it is that it was which we fought against? Does this “new” generation even remember that cold war? And what of the men who fought it? Where did that Colin Powell go, that fine General who fought for and served this country so well, now to seemingly care more for “appearances” and “the future” above what this country was founded for, it’s history,  and what it has meant and given to the world? My heart aches for my country. We’ve so much to lose, and it can so quickly be gone… They say you never know what you’ve got till its gone, and for so many here, that is a truth that will surly haunt them.


Questions? We’ll have none of that!

18 10 2008

Ask a simple question of Obama, watch your whole world come crashing down.



John McCain-“The response from Senator Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe. People are digging through his personal life and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house,” McCain told a rowdy crowd at Florida International University. “He didn’t ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn’t recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.”



We’re sorry Joe. Well, some of us are. -Al


16 10 2008

Imagine, Communists actively and joyfully campaigning for a serious candidate for the Presidency of the United States . Even just four short years ago this would have been unheard of, un-imaginable even.

Shouldn’t someone out there in the serious press be asking the question WHY?

While it’s true the US Communist Party has made no official endorsement of Barack Obama, its members have taken to the streets actively campaigning for him. The party expresses open joy at our current economic situation. That alone speaks volumes about who is better for our country.

And while we have those here, that want to take us there, those that are there are doing all they can to come here. Two Cuban Soccer players just recently defected while in Washington D.C. to participate in a match. They join a long list of others that have taken great risk to come here and enjoy the great freedom we have. According to a Reuters Report by Anthony Boadle ‘Defections have plagued Cuban sports, which have lost dozens of top baseball players, boxers and other athletes in recent years, many seeking lucrative careers in the United States, much to the annoyance of Cuba’s communist authorities.’

Meanwhile, Barack Obama has been endorsed by Cuba . Cuba’s Fidel Castro: “[Obama] the man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency.” In fact leaders and dictators have been crawling out of the woodwork it would seem, lining up right and left to offer words of support for Obama’s campaign.

North Korea’s Kim Jong-il: “We will see a better relationship between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula with Obama, who sternly criticizes Bush and who would meet the leader of Chosun without preconditions.”

Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega: “[Obama’s] laying the foundations for a revolutionary change” in America.

“Revolutionary” change. Reagan is most probably spinning in his grave…

Many people would have you not refer to them as ‘communists’. That term has become ‘politically incorrect’ it would seem. About the only real difference, however, is in the spelling, but they think it adds a bit more soothing legitimacy to their cause to refer to it as socialism, not communism. Socialist, that’s the second ‘S’ in USSR.

Steve Bartin, a blogger who has been following Barack Obama’s career and involvement with Chicago socialists uncovered a video of Obama openly campaigning for Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Socialist from Vermont . Only fair I suppose. Obama did receive the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) when he ran for the Illinois senate.

The DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States . It’s the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International (SI.) The group has “consultative status” with the UN. And of course it’s the UN that is the focus of “The Global Poverty Act”, an Obama bill, pushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Sen. Joe Biden, Chairman. That legislation (S.2433) would have the U.S. commit to spending hundreds of billions of tax dollars in foreign aid in order to comply with the “Millennium Goals” established by the United Nations. Hundreds of Billions at a time when our economy is in such turmoil.

Another group tied in with Socialist International is the PES, or Party of European Socialists, to which Howard Dean told that Democrats want to be “good citizens of the world community.”

 PSE, according to it’s President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, met at Democrat headquarters in Washington D.C. with Democrat Party officials and Congressional members, where they agreed to have PES “activist groups” work together with them in various U.S. cities.

Obama was asked by a gentleman in Ohio , “Why do you want to raise my taxes?” Obama’s answer, “I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.”

The difference between socialism and capitalism is in how that wealth is spread.

Socialism takes from the hard workers and achievers and gives it to those that don’t earn it for themselves. That’s always the fly in socialisms ointment. Too many put out their hand for their “share” of the wealth, but do nothing to earn that share. That causes those that do work and create that wealth in the first place to not want to go very far out of their way to do any more than they have to. Socialism is self defeating, and it’s failed the world over, yet now this group wants to give it a try here.

 Capitalism is all about creating and growing and earning the measure of what your hands or mind creates. What government should be about is creating the opportunity for all that wish to participate in the creation, not taking from those that do and giving to those that don’t. Certainly we should offer a hand to those that truly need that hand, but the democrats/socialists seemly have an open door policy with who qualifies as “in need.”

It’s hard to share wealth that isn’t there.

 An article posted in the Gateway Pundit website tells us that we shouldn’t be surprised in Obama’s takeaway giveaway socialist philosophy. He was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, a noted communist. And on page 100 of his book “Dreams From My Father” he tells us:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

And on page 122:

“Political discussions, the kind that at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences that I sometimes attended at Cooper Union or the African cultural fairs that took place in Harlem or Brooklyn during the summers…”

Another of Obama’s “acquaintances” that has received a good bit of press nowadays is Bill Ayres. Ayres said we’ve nothing to fear by his association with Obama. In 1995 Ayres explained that he was just a “small c communist”. Whew, isn’t that a relief? Vladimir Puntin, now there is a big C Communist. And he’s someone our next President will have to know and understand quite well.

Saul Alansky, the “father” of community organizing and father figure of many radicals of the 60’s wrote in ‘Rules for Radicals’: “Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention , you be the delegates.” It’s a lesson that it would seem Obama has taken to heart.

According to Kyle-Anne Shiver’s article in the American Thinker – Obama’s Radical Revolution: Its Alinsky Root and Global Vision, Shiver tells us “Obama did everything Alinsky prescribed. He went to Chicago , home of Alinski and the place where [Frank Marshall] Davis had worked for the communist revolution. Obama trained at the Industrial Area Foundation, an Alinsky training institute. He organized in Chicago and did voter registration and training for ACORN. He went to law school. He built political alliances. He kept a tight lock on his records and his past.”

“As for Judeo/Christian morals. Forget it Alinsky trained his radicals in the spirit of no-holds-barred methods. In Alinsky’s mind, the American power structure was evil to its core and justified any means necessary to change the “world as it is” into the “world as it should be.”

That vision of how “it should be” is the radicals vision. Does any of this sound familiar, or ring any bells with what’s happening today?

Shiver goes on to say – “Alinsky’s tenth rule of ethics means: “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” Well, Hello there Reverend…

Right now the left is going on somewhat of a rampage, slashing and shredding and even burning McCain signs, slashing tires and keying cars with McCain bumberstickers. Have you heard about that? I didn’t think so. And if you have I’d be willing to bet it wasn’t on the nightly news. But I’d also be willing to bet that you’ve heard about those limited instances of McCain supporters “rowdiness” at campaign rallies. A rowdiness that pales in comparison to some of what has spewed forth from the left.

For months, no years, we’ve heard the drumbeat of anti-Bush, anti-republican rhetoric from the left. We’ve seen the hand wringing in the press and heard it on the 6 o’clock news. How Bush wanted to steal away our constitution and the only reason for Iraq was the oil. Palin is some kind of Nazi that wants to lock up scared young women that get into trouble and FOX news is the devil in disguise. It’s a continuation of a conditioning that has been going on for quite some time.

The “right”, they tell us, is full of hate and rage, but that it was Bush that planned 9-11 and blew up the levee’s in New Orleans , so they say. And it’s all Bushes fault that our economy is in the shape that it is. Pay no attention to that man behind the mirror, and the fact Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had anything at all to do with it. Pay no mind that it was the democrats that resisted regulating them, and even as the troubles came to light that democrat Barney Frank who now heads the House Banking Committee told us “These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crises. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on the companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

What affordable housing? It was those “affordable” home loans that some people couldn’t afford in the first place that brought us to where we are today. Barney, the exaggeration was the other way around. This ones on YOU.

“Even though the Soviet system fell and its Marxist “utopia” was clearly revealed as the antithesis of the promise to bring liberation and light to the world, the hope lives on and thrives within the heart of Obama and his followers, and the plan is a global one.” – There are many people convinced that President Bush was a threat to the Constitution of The United States, and to the freedoms and liberties we enjoy. Those people loudly support Barrack Obama right now. But as far as a threat to the Constitution and our freedoms and liberties go, with Obama, these people haven’t seen anything yet.




13 10 2008

and how what you don’t know might hurt ya…


I was watching the local news tonight and they presented the results of a local poll on the economy. I believe 44% blamed the current economic crisis on the republicans, while something like 25% felt that the democrats were at fault. What do those statistics tell us? That the press hasn’t done a very good job of informing the public about the facts concerning the issue. The evidence that the democrats are at fault here is overwhelming. This crisis can be easily traced right back to its very beginning, and its roots are clear. There is no doubt. No wiggle room.


Most people only know what they are told. The press, one would think, would have a responsibility to make sure the information it presents doesn’t mislead, or cause wrong impressions of the issues of the day. The press, it now seems, only tells us what the press wants us to know. That is the nature of today’s political scene. The press has interjected itself into the process, and they’ve done so, most of the time, quietly and almost unnoticed. Sometimes its blatant. Sometimes through what they say in a story, and sometimes through what they omit.


CBS had a story about McCain’s and Obama’s health care plans and the differences between the two. Their story concerned a restaurant and its employees and gave us a few examples of how things are now and how they might be with the coming new presidency. Discussing McCain’s plan they talked to a waitress who didn’t like it. She didn’t like it because she was scared that McCain’s plan would offer too many choices. So many choices that she was scared she would choose wrong!  I never did see the point of how Obama’s plan would be better, only that it would at least provide another option for coverage.


When they talked with the restaurant owner he expressed his desire to continue to provide coverage for his employees through his company plan. The report failed to tell how McCain’s plan would help with that desire by allowing his employees to buy into that plan with the tax credits (a simple option for the concerned waitress). And something that would most probably allow for even better coverage, as it would most likely increase the pool of insured. However, the report just left me with the impression of an implication that there was some kind of fault with McCain’s plan.


Reports like this leave me more and more jaundiced about our future. I’m not now, nor have I ever been a big McCain supporter. I do feel he is the far better of the choice we have in this election, but that’s not the only real worry that I have in this coming round of elections. There are a lot of things hanging out there right now. Most of them not so good.


I’m conservative, but by no means a libertarian in my beliefs. I do feel that government has its place, but governments intrusions into our lives, homes, and our workplaces should be at a minimum. Obama claims to offer change. And change is sure to come if the congress goes even further left as it now seems to be headed. I worry that those changes won’t be for the better.


Even in this current administration we’ve seen government agencies stretch their grasp toward more control and requirements. Take such things as wanting to make television shows emphasize the product placements within their programming. Seeing the KFC label on the bucket on the table isn’t enough. The government wants them to tell you that that bucket that said KFC on it was a KFC bucket and KFC paid to put it there. What that matters I don’t know. It seems rather obvious to me that the KFC bucket was a KFC bucket… why do they need to point out that somebody (KFC) was willing to pay to put it there? Does it really make a difference to somebody? I mean, I know ‘Hollywood’ does like to exert its influence nowadays, but if it was Hollywood wanting us to buy KFC they’d put the KFC bucket there and not charge KFC to do so, wouldn’t they? Couldn’t they.


While the above may seem a bit on the silly side this one isn’t. How about a “calorie tax”? According to the October 6 issue of Nation’s Restaurant News health watchdogs are urging activists and public health officials to “push the envelope of the legal system” in addressing obesity. The magazine tells us that the Public Health Advocacy Institute has turned its attention to the coming new federal administration and has begun formulating an agenda that would do such things as encourage funding for mass transit and building more biking and walking trails. Innocent enough for sure, right? But it doesn’t end there, they also want to mandate (?) the cultivation of more vegetables, restrict food marketing to children, and possibly even tax high-calorie ingredients in products.


It points out how taxes on foods with high sugar or fat content, or those high in calories in general might reduce consumption of those foods. It was pointed out that increasing prices on tobacco products by increasing taxes resulted in a whole 4% reduction in usage. Not much research has been done yet on determining how prices of certain foods affect people’s weight, it was admitted.


My mother, I’d like to point out here, ate chocolate seemingly by the handful and had trouble keeping weight on. Would a skinny folk tax exemption be in order too?


At a meeting between those activists and officials, Marice Ashe of the Public Health Institute in Oakland, Calif., discussed strategies like having the government require business it works with to have obesity prevention programs, much like the required drug testing as now. (Does that mean you can’t get, or keep the job if your overweight?) She also suggested such things as zoning requirements for corner stores to carry fresh fruit. Now, to me, that’s starting to get intrusive.


Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) told a recent conference of the National Restaurant Association that “It’s important to pass legislation to get people to eat the right foods.” Imagine, federal laws telling you what you can, and can’t eat. Intrusive? Ya think? The magazine tells us that passing some of this stuff would be challenging… but with some of this “change”, and some new faces in congress, who knows for sure?


There are new and continuing proposals for changing labeling laws, changes in the American Disabilities Act, immigration reform, food safety, farm subsidies, and on and on. Some probably great! Some probably not.


In this current economy businesses are struggling to just to meet the bottom line, pay their bills, and keep their employees employed. Burdening them with more and more requirements isn’t a pleasant prospect.


The future is scary enough with just having to put bread on the table. What changes even to that very loaf are right around the corner? We used to could depend on sane heads to separate the wheat from the chaff with some of this legislation. Once we could depend on the press to tell us of the fallacies with some of this stuff. Nowadays, I’m not so sure. And, with the prospects of the coming election, I’m beginning to fear the worst.


If the press won’t give you the straight scoop on the causes of our current economic condition, can we depend on them to tell us, the public, the real story on some of these proposed changes? Intrusive changes. Changes that it’s looking more and more are sure to come.





10 10 2008



The number one problem in Washington seems to be Washington itself. The place gives every appearance of being full of babbling idiots. When congress is in session one could almost say that the circus is in town… but it’s sometimes seems the circus never ends.

Lets take a look at the candidates that say they want to “change” that.

Obama – He’s jumped heart and soul into the Washington mindset. Smart and knows how to play the game to get what he wants. A master at telling people what they want to hear and making promises that he has no intention to keep. Fluent at doublespeak, talking out of both sides of his mouth, but tends to let his mouth outrun his mind and can’t keep up with the tales he’s told to the different groups he talks to which leads to charges of flip flopping on issues. Can make a long speech which tells you nothing at all and have you believing every word of it. Has no real position on anything except a desire to win. Never really accomplished much according to his running mate. Stands by a record that doesn’t exist.

Biden – doesn’t live there, but “lives” it none the less. Prototypical Senator. Insider. No longer a regular Joe, but plays one quite well. Nice guy with good intentions for the most part, but can speak his mind which can get him in deep with different groups and his own party. Has to back track and clarify his remarks often. Excels at telling you good solid facts about stuff that doesn’t exist or didn’t really happen.


McCain – an insider/outsider who stays on the outs with his on party for not playing follow the leader, yet can’t quite be embraced by the other side because he keeps on kicking and nicking their policies and priorities. He’s like the smart but goofy kid that everyone kinda likes, but won’t let him be part of the crowd. This year he’s accused of being Bush made over, but four years ago he came close to being asked to run as the democrats (Kerry’s) VP candidate. Go figure.

Palin – The anti-Washington outsider in all respects. She’s not accepted as a member of the club, for she’s too middle America. Walks to the drumbeat that most of us walk to – reality. Speaks plain English, which goes over the head of most in Washington and the media. Knows more about how things SHOULD work than most anybody in Washington, but doesn’t know how to ride the system… which is, after all, the change everyone keeps hoping for out of Washington. Has far more executive experience than any other candidate, but is accused of lacking executive experience. Closer to the “regular” people than any other candidate, and perhaps understands the real needs and desires of the public instead of the traditional politician who just seems to want to tell the public what its needs and desires are.

I don’t know what the future holds with this coming election. But I know, from the direction it appears to be going, it ain’t gonna be getting any better. The public blindly follows a pied piper of a press the seemingly hasn’t got a clue itself of where the people it seems to promote seem to want to take us. And what’s so scary about that is that the warning signs are everywhere, but they refuse to be read.

There is danger ahead. We were warned about the mess we are in right now, and we refused to heed that warning. Just what are we about to get ourselves into? Well, at least we were warned. The question is – did you hear it?



The rest of the story…

7 10 2008

Sometimes we can’t see the forest for the trees. Sure enough, times are bad, but what’s the cause of it all? Who, or what created this monster?

High energy prices, falling home values, rising unemployment, foreclosures and falling markets. And those are just a few of the things confronting us today. Many people are just downright scared of what the future holds. We’ve got politicians telling us this and telling us that, using fear as leverage for votes. And some of what they sell is fact. Scary fact at that.

We hear over and over how the Bush administration failed with it policies, but that doesn’t account for the good economy and great job numbers for the first five or six years of his administration. It has, after all, been after the democrats took back the House and Senate that things got ugly. And anyway, most of the problems with the housing crises sits firmly at the feet of the democrats and their interference with the market via a fundamentally flawed plan to provide home ownership to minorities and the disadvantaged. Good intentions for sure, but good intentions they say pave the road to hell. Well, in this case, to ruin anyway.

And as democrat tend to do they want to blame somebody else, so they blame the whole thing on greedy Wall Streeter’s. And of course there are greedy Wall Streeter’s to be found. But the first thing the democrats did to “rectify” their belief that the roots stem from there is to place limits upon the system. More meddling in the market. Meddling is what created this mess on Wall Street in the first place.

Thomas Sowell, a man whom I have great respect for, sums it up this way – “In the midst of a major national financial crisis, what was one of the first things Congress zeroed in on? The pay of Chief Executive Officers of financial institutions.and “ …however insignificant the pay of CEOs is economically, it is big stuff politically. Whatever the shortcomings of the Democrats, they are consistent in their message, and class envy is a great part of that message.”


If all those CEOs agreed to work for nothing, that would not be enough to lower the bailout money by one percent. Anyone who was really serious would start with the 99 percent and let the one percent come later, if at all.”

In fact Mr. Sowell goes on to say that limiting compensation may in fact make it worse – “Politically imposed limits on the pay of CEOs is one of the most penny-wise and pound-foolish things that can be done. The difference between a top-notch CEO and a second-rate CEO can be billions of dollars on the bottom line. But in all this talk about Wall street and housing and how much a CEO can, or can’t make, we’ve overlooked one very important pressure out there in the country. I’ve broached the subject several times, but it’s as if nobody else sees, or even knows. And it has always brought with it the consequences of a weaker economy and a slowdown or worse in the job market. What that is is the minimum wage increase we just had.

You can’t take money out of the pockets of a company and not expect it to ripple through the dynamics of that company. Wages are a huge part of costs, and when cost go up it effects the bottom line, simple as that. This increase was no small itty bitty bite of the pie either. Seventy cents an hours – more than ten percent. Do the math. The increase has to be paid for somehow… Guess how?

Taxes, wages, interest rates; raise anything by ten percent and the results should be obvious. Somehow they weren’t… at least nobody is talking.

Like I said back in July – ‘Increases in wages can and should be a good thing… when they naturally occur. The main problem is that some employers kind of ride the wage far too long for many employees. The Feds increases the minimum wage to correct that situation. BUT, the forced rise comes with some negative consequences. It slows (or stops) job growth and create inflationary pressure on the economy.’ – I believe my point is proved.

Timing, they say, is everything. Giving more money to people may sound really good right now, but that money is coming at a time perhaps when the giver can least afford it.

Not only do I believe that the wage increase is a goodly percentage of the collective problems we now face, I believe we aren’t yet seeing the fullness of its effect. Has Social Security gone up yet? What about pensions? Will they rise too? Ten percent? The answer of course is no. So our elderly have taken a huge hit economically, and for all practical purposes they got a decrease.

And a double whammy on our seniors it is. Those on social security taking a hit, and those depending on income from investments, either personal or via retirement systems, losing tremendous value in the fiasco. Just wait till those statements show up in the mail.

This last raise in the minimum wage was step two in the process. Round three is coming next July I do believe and with it another seventy cent increase. The total amount of minimum wage increase adds up to about a forty percent increase in wages. And this isn’t just the minimum wages that go up, as it eventually trickles UP the wage chain, so don’t be looking for any real stability out there for maybe a couple of more years after that.

In a couple or three years prices will have gone up to pay for those raises and everything will sort itself back out, only the numbers will have changed. Back to the way it was before they went up. The same for everybody…, everybody but our elderly and others on fixed income. Once again they find themselves on the short end of the stick. That’s why nobody can afford to retire on Social Security anymore. We’ve raised that ability right out of existence.

Mandates are never good. Mandating loans be made to people that couldn’t really afford them was folly. Costly folly at that. Mandating fixes to problems usually just creates new problems. But a mandated wage increase is the real elephant in the room here.



About time…

6 10 2008

McCain finally speaks!

Well, we were warned…

6 10 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – It really is the economy, stupid! Economic models that have correctly predicted the winner of almost all post-war U.S. presidential elections say recession fears will secure a victory for Barack Obama in November….


*”I think there is little doubt how the November elections will turn out,” said [Joseph] Stiglitz, a former vice president of the World Bank and adviser to ex-US president Bill Clinton. “We are in the midst of the worst crisis of the last century, and until we’ve reached the bottom we cannot climb back up,” he said.



Bush is President and he’s a republican… so he get’s the blame for the economic mess we find ourselves in. Truth is, that’s far from the case. In fact, it should be noted that many of the problems we face today actually stem from back during Clinton’s presidency, when Mr. Stiglitz was an advisor to Clinton. Mr. Bush has been warning us since 2001 that this was coming. His warnings fell on deft ears, yet we still put the blame on him.


Truly baffling, as it’s the high cost of energy that put the economy on the ropes in the first place and the democrats (and Obama) who refused any help. And it’s the democrats that are at the very root of the rest of the sad sad economic story.

The democrats want to blame the current economic crises in Banking and on Wall Street on President Bush, and tell us that it’s the republicans policies and plans that caused all of this mess. That’s false, this isn’t due to any policy of George Bush or the republicans, but do to the DEMOCRATS policy of trying to give people something for nothing. It was the Democrats that blocked regulation and supervision. It was the democrats that came up with a lunatic plan to give people that couldn’t pay a note, that note in the first place, as if they were doing them a favor. A favor that only put them deep into debt, and possibly out on the street in the end. It was the democrats that did that, not Bush. Not the republicans.

The democrats want to place the blame on the “free market” and place restrictions upon it. But it was no “free market” that caused this collapse. The democrats forced a government “program” upon a free market and that “socialist” policy lead to this downfall -DIRECTLY. This is 100% on the democrats. If the government hadn’t mandated this stuff in the beginning this WOULD HAVE NEVER COME TO PASS.

Obama has stood several times upon a stage and announced that he intends to do nothing about the high cost of Oil. But they don’t report that, or when they do they obscure the meaning of what he said. The only problem Obama has with that high cost is that it went up faster than “he wanted” it to. They (Obama and the dems) want to use the high cost of gas and oil as a tool to somehow help the environment. To them the high cost is a GOOD THING. It doesn’t matter the fortune that it will cost some to heat their homes this winter. It is meaningless to them that people will have to struggle just to get to their jobs, much less put ever more expensive food on the table. They don’t care that it will cost thousand their jobs. It already has! It just makes us more dependant on the government, and that’s what it’s really all about anyway.

And they think that the crises in the market is a golden opportunity to further regulate and control wealth and restructure and control the marketplace. They see opportunity for more activism and socialism in how America functions. But we’ve seen the results of socialism in the world. How helpful is it really to reduce a peoples standard of living? How helpful is it to the environment to create more poverty and have people across the world, and right here in America, starve?

People, they want you to believe Bush is behind all of this, but look around you. The democrats tell you to your face that they will to do nothing for you. Nothing but take. Beware, anytime they mention ‘socialize’, or ‘nationalize’ anything, they are taking away something of yours. It’s called socialism. Name something that the government does that it does better than the people and private enterprise.

Socialism couldn’t defeat us from the outside. But it seems to be growing strong from within. What’s the difference between socialism and communism? – The spelling.

Two years ago we voted for change in Washington and change we got. Two years ago the economy was doing quite well. Employment was at record levels. Gas was just a bit over $2 per gallon. Home prices were still on the rise. Interest rates were low. The Dow was soaring at over 12,500. Our big concern was the war in Iraq. Then we put the democrats in control of the purse strings…

*copied and pasted from somewhere…out there…can’t remember where…