My Neighbor's Wisdom...

I received this email from a friend. I couldn't agree with him more...


Didn't GWB catch a "little flack" for taking about four minutes to contemplate and gather his thoughts following the 9/11 attacks? And his first comments included empathy, prayers and next steps. This guy is so clueless, it has become scary. This is actually from an NBC news affiliate. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html I know I'm preaching to the chior, but how did so many smart people enthusiastically support this maniac and his cronies?

Neighbor

CNN shows clear bias during recent campaign

I like CNN - but wow! Are they biased or what?! Wow! CNN is way too far to the left these days. As I said before - find a major political story on your favorite news site and then compare it to CNN. Look at both the headlines and the content. Amazingly CNN usually covers only half the story....the left half.

Take the election this past Tuesday as a good example. Here is a snippet of the front page of the CNN website.

To help with People's eye sight the headline of their top story reads: "Analysis: Election not a referendum on Obama"
The first paragraph of this article that is posted prominently on the front page reads: "Victories in New Jersey and Virginia gave a boost to the GOP ahead of the 2010 elections, but analysts say the results should not be interpreted as a blow to President Obama"

OH REALLY? Who were these Analyst that helped CNN come to this conclusion and craft CNN's headline? Let' see. They were CNN's own exit polls, a CNN survey, a Democratic strategists and grassroots activists, a consultant who works with conservative Democratic incumbents and challengers, and a founder of a major liberal political blog. I'm not making these sources up: They are all clearly credited with these findings in the article. The article then states the same thing -that this election won't hurt Obama - several different ways...

What were the top campaign stories on the other websites?

CNBC: Republicans Win Va., N.J. Governor's Races "Republicans rolled to victory in Virginia and New Jersey governor's races on Tuesday in a sharp blow to Democrats that showed the limits of U.S. President Barack Obama's political clout...." And the article continues on to describe how this election is a referendum on Obama .

MSNBC: A year after dousing, GOP’s hope rekindled: Coalition that swept Obama into White House was absent on Tuesday "The Republican victories in the races for New Jersey and Virginia governors put the party in a stronger position to turn back the political wave President Obama unleashed last year, setting the stage for Republicans to raise money, recruit candidates and ride the excitement of an energized base as the party heads into next year’s midterm elections. " So CNN's belief that this won't hurt Obama and help the Republican's is countered here.

FoxNews: Steele: Voters Spoke on Obama Policies; White House Brushes Off GOP Victories "Republican leaders have quickly sought to cast their gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia as the beginning of a resurgence for their party and a sign of trouble for President Obama while the White House argues that the results are not about the president. " Again another contradiction to CNN. This article shows the right's view, but it also clearly states the fact that it the view from the right: It doesn't use the nebulous "analysts say".

USAToday: Va., N.J. give GOP reason to celebrate "...The easy victory by Bob McDonnell in swing-state Virginia and the closer win by Chris Christie in Democratic-leaning New Jersey were a tonic for Republicans after stinging setbacks in 2008 and 2006. Republicans argued and Democrats disputed that the pair of contests reflected voters' early judgment on Obama's presidency and signaled what would happen in next year's congressional races...." Hmm, Another strike for CNN: Has CNN totally missed the story or are they catering to the left?

Every major news article describes how this is a referendum on Obama. However, CNN doesn't see it this way. Even the House Democrats see it this way. With 16 hours of the election results the House decided to put the Health Care bill up for a vote within 72 hours. They know that they need to get this vote behind them quickly - long before they face their reelection in 2010. I think only Nancy Pelosi and CNN is calling this a victory for Obama. Why CNN is choosing to be way left of center in the news - I don't understand....

I don't believe Obama did "create or save" 650,000 jobs.

Saved Jobs! This came in this morning over the CNN Breaking News flash. I woke up - opened my email and read it: -- White House says 650,000 jobs were created or saved by $150 billion in stimulus funds.

Am I happy? For 650,000 people this could be (stress "could be") some good news. But let me take off my Rose colored Obama glasses.

First, The White House has stated that many of these jobs were federal, state, or local government jobs. Let's just assume less than half, 300,000, are government jobs - jobs that create no wealth in America. And if you do the math, each job cost us only $230,769.23. Since these jobs create no wealth and cannot drive any revenue in society we must assume that these jobs will cost us $69 Billion dollars this year - next year - and every year thereafter. So in effect, this explosive government growth is going to cost us $1 Trillion dollars within a decade. This is job growth that I don't want.

Second, Everyone should be suspect of the term "saved" jobs. Every job in America has basically been on the brink and can now be categorized as a "saved job". This is actually a politically genies thing for Obama to say. You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time, but there is no way to measure how many jobs are "saved". I find it ironic that with unemployment still rising that any person believes in this metric. It's kind of like the musicians playing their music on the Titanic as is listed to one side. I'm glad the President had put a focus on saving American jobs: He just has gone about it all wrong. Completely backwards! You "save" American jobs by promoting an economy that rewards risk and incentivizes innovation. You don't "save" American jobs by creating more government, more regulation and higher taxes. There was a country called the USSR that did this and some people can remember what happened to them.

Third, the pundits are already finding some major errors in the calculations. In my home state of Georgia, a community college reportedly creating 280 jobs but no one can find these people anywhere on campus. A Florida day care center said it "saved" 129 jobs but at the same time gave raises that are almost equal to the money they received. A French vaccine maker received a $1.4 billion check. But the truth later emerged that it in fact received one-100th of that amount. Obama will keep the list of saved jobs secret because this is his way of making things transparent - like he promised. If you can't see it - it must be transparent. Conservatives will slowly pick a part this secret list and we'll eventually get a look at how bogus claims are being created to create these quarter million dollar a year jobs.

Socialism is not the direction my America should be headed. I thought the government that obfuscates facts, creates a false economic model, and destroys innovation was in Venezuela or Bolivia. I didn't think my country would follow their lead.

CHANGE you can't believe in - like you HOPEd

Obama ran on a platform of Change and Hope. His mantra was all about changing the way Washington does business. There was even the www.change.gov website that was set up to talk about how Washington was going to change under an Obama/Biden rule. Maybe I'm crazy and making this up, but I thought he said something about ending partisanship and making government more transparent.

I think everyone who knows me - knows where I'm headed with this. Obama has made charges all right. He has taken partisan politics to a low I have never seen. His hope strategy is a complete failure. He now realizes that not everyone in America agrees with his socialist agenda. And finally, his inability to change how government works is infuriating. What is interesting in all of this - is how this is all ignored by the liberals. Even the media keeps reporting that 'those evil Republicans are voting against Obama - not his great ideas. They just want him to fail'

Shouldn't someone in the media be looking at this a bit different? Perhaps they should be asking if Obama's core message/promise to America has even come close to being met? If his promise of change or hope had been met - don't you think Obama's approval ratings would be going up or remain flat?

Let's just explore the "changes" he talked about...

Has he stopped "ear marks"? This is the one thing that makes both Democrats and Republicans crazy. Not even close to making this change! For dollar volume they are a tad bit lower this year then they were during Bush's last year - but of course (crazy me) I consider the $787 Billion Stimulus package one huge ear mark. That is laden with pork projects. So for all practical purposes earmarks have gone up. So that is change I can believe in?

Has he helped deflate the partisan fighting? Nope. Seems worse to me. A USA Today poll showed that partisanship is at an all time high. I believe it.

Has he stopped the growth of the Federal Deficit? Hell no! My kids are going to pay for his lax attitude on fiscal discipline.

Has he made the inner workings of government more transparent? Not even come close to it. By drawing up enemies list, barring Republicans from key meetings, making decisions behind closed door, appointing large party contributors to ambassadorships etc, he has not changed government - if anything he is making it less transparent.

So apparently the change he talked about is just changing America to Socialism. Or maybe the Hope he talked about was his strategy. He hoped things would change if he did more of the same? So far I give Obama an "F" on his two promises to America. Again Obama says one thing and does another....

Is CNN biased?

CNN is a liberal news organization - period. CNN, their staunch liberal supporters and the White House can all try to tell me it isn't biased. But I won't buy that story. Let me plead my case.

First look at this major news section from October 28th: "The Obama Effect." Was there ever a "Bush" section like this? Is Obama so wonderful that CNN can only report positive stories such as these. Or perhaps there are two sides of the story and these headlines only are showing the liberal's view?

Anderson Cooper seems to be a nice chap, and he is considered one of the best reporters at CNN. He is theie rock star. But he is liberal - very liberal. Check out his section about "Letters to the President". I have gone through his letters to Obama, and he is basically using this as a platform to embrace Obama and deliver support for everything that Obama is doing. He makes excuses for not having enough H1N1 flu shots (#282). He says that taking a long time to make a decision on Afghanistan is a good thing (#281). He wants Obama to tell the world that people are employed and unemployment numbers aren't that bad (#280). #279 is non-political and is all about the Saints. #278 is telling Obama that even the best statesman get thrown off balance - so keep trekking. #277 is supporting Obama's Pay Czar decisions. Finally in #276 he speaks against the White House policy of attacking reporters in Fox News... I guess this isn't a surprise as reporters stick together.

Going through the remaining "letters", there are a few that criticize the Senate or the House. There are a few that come close to criticizing Obama, but the vast majority heap praise on Obama or support Obama's decisions . This is hardly a non-biased reporter. No matter how hard a reporter tries, their choice of words or their gestures imply support for their cause or disdain for the other side. Mr. Cooper will never be kicked out of the White House reporter pool.

Look at this headline from the 28th "Clinton arrives in Pakistan to write new chapter in relations". This headline could have been written by Clinton all by herself. Does this headline imply that Bush didn't support Pakistan, that Bush didn't give them buckets of money, that Bush didn't try to persuade them to fight Al Queda? So what is the difference in the new chapter? Nothing but different players. Compare this to Fox News which says this is just turning the page - not writing a whole new chapter - which has very different meanings: Clinton: U.S. 'Turning the Page' With Pakistan. Fox News also points out the problems between Pakistan and the U.S.. CNN just praises Clinton and promotes her mission. Who is more balanced?

On the 29th a major news headline read: "Obama signs hate crimes bill into law." I guess it doesn't matter to CNN that this is a small part of the law that Obama signed. The law was a Defense spending bill that authorized $680 billion in spending and "hate crime" was tagged on to it. CNN mentions this at the end of the article. It also mentions that Bush and the Republicans had blocked this legislation in the past. Let me compare this to the article from Fox News, entitled "Obama Signs Defense Policy Bill That Includes 'Hate Crime Legislation" , which discusses all aspects of the bill. Basically CNN is pandering to a liberal audience and making Obama out to be the Messiah by signing a hate crime bill. Fox News is more centrist and tells the overall story: It is a defense spending bill that includes a hate crime provision that conservatives don't like.

When you see a major political story on CNN: Read their headline and then go read Fox News' headline. CNN's headline will be more biased to the left. Then read both articles. Fox News continues to be balanced with all points covered. CNN's news seems to cater to their liberal base and not challenging the White House or Democrats. I'm biased, so I'm sure I read more into this then what is there. But it is clearly there....

Don't fear the wacko right...fear the wackos!

All my life the media has always talked about the right wing wackos...the gun toting right wing nuts...right wing fanatics...the right wing fringe and on and on and on. I've been told that these guys are the ones to look out for. They are crazy enough to kill a President. I just watched an Ann Coulter video, and she said that throughout our history it was the leftist wackos that have assassinated our Presidents. Could the media be wrong? Hmmm, so I did some research


ASSASSINATIONS:

• John F Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald, a lover of Communism, tried to move to Russia but was denied citizenship. Communisms is about as left as you can get. Ann was right on this one.
• James Garfield was assassinated by Charles Guiteau. Garfield was a Republican President and Charles was probably a Republican - but seems to be mostly a RINO. Garfield refused to give Charles a job, the Republicans cast him out of the party and he was banned from entering the White House. So he shot the Republican President. Ann was kind of wrong here - but not totally.
• William McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz - a vowed social anarchist. Social anarchist believe that individual freedom is conceptually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid. Ole Leon was an extreme leftist. Ann was right on this one too.
• Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. John was a stage actor and was upset that the South had lost the war. The South was the embodiment of the Democrat party and Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President. Ann was right here.
  

ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS

• Ronald Reagan (Republican) was shot at by John Hinckly. John's parents were Republican, but John choose to move to Hollywood and write songs (usually a strong characteristic of a leftist). By all accounts, at the time he shot Reagan - he was a delusional liberal. Ann was right
• Franklin Roosevelt was shot at with five bullets by Giuseppe Zangara. His motive and his political leanings are unknown. Many people suspect that the true target was the mayor of Chicago - who was shot and killed. This assassination attempt was more than likely due to gang warfare in Chicago and not related to politics. So, on this one it is a toss up, since no one knows the political leanings of the shooter.
• Andrew Jackson was shot at twice by Richard Lawrence. Both guns misfired. This guy was delusional. However, it sounds like he had liberal leanings because he gave up his job saying that he had no need to work as the government owed him money. He also said that when he received the money he would become the King of England. I won't say Ann was correct, but she definitely wasn't wrong - So, I'll call this a toss up too.
• Theodore Roosevelt was shot by John Schrank and survived. No one really knows what John's political thoughts were. It is known that he was a strong opponent of a sitting President's ability to seek a third term in office. During psychiatric testing, Schrank said that he was advised by the ghost of William McKinkley in a dream to avenge his death while pointing to a picture of Theodore Roosevelt. No one knows if Ann is correct so let's call this one a toss up too
• Gerald Ford had a pistol pointed at him by Lynette Fromme, a former member of the Manson family. Obviously she was a nut job too. But, by all indications she was a extreme liberal. I'm going to give this one to Ann. She was right.

I know there were attempts on many other Presidents including the Bush's and Clinton. But these were not close calls. What I discovered in my investigation is that it isn't the Right Wing Wackos that I or the President needs to be scared of. We need to be scared of the Wackos - which tend to come from the far left. I guess the media believes that since they used guns - they are from the right, but now I know better.

My Minsota cuz got rested

A northern Minnesota man has pleaded guilty to driving his motorized lounge chair while drunk.A criminal complaint says 62-year-old Dennis LeRoy Anderson told police he left the Keyboard Lounge in Proctor on his customized La-Z-Boy after drinking eight or nine beers.Prosecutors say Anderson's blood alcohol content was 0.29, more than three times the legal limit, when he crashed the lounge chair into a parked vehicle in August 2008.Proctor Deputy Police Chief Troy Foucault says the chair was powered by a converted lawnmower and was equipped with a stereo and cup holders.

I love America!

Obama's strategy mimics failed policies

The economy is in the tank. So what does one do? Do you increase government's role in everyday life, spend haphazardly and assure a welfare society - Like FDR? Do you create a "great society" that institutionalizes poverty in Americans and removes personal accountability - Like LBJ? Do you create multiple failure-ridden, executive-level departments that waste billions of tax paper dollars - Like Carter? Do you give great speeches, decrease regulations and cut taxes that stimulates the world's economic growth- like Reagan? Do you not do anything spectacular and ride a bubble, which collapses about the time you leave office - like Clinton and Bush? Which path has Obama chosen?

I believe that Obama is trying to do all of these strategies at once and is succeeding only in socializing America - not saving it. The outcome is yet to be decided, but history is a great predictor of the future. It is obvious that there isn't much that Obama believes private enterprise can do as good as government. His strategy seems to be very simple: Government is the answer and the only answer. He has yet to try to stimulate free markets.

The FDR Strategy:
People will argue both sides of the Stimulus Package, which is Obama's attempt to be a Roosevelt. Obama and company will say it is working and "saving" American jobs. Republicans will show the fact that unemployment will top out well over 10% and prove it isn't working. At this point in time the argument is moot - although I have some strong opinions. The one thing that is certain is that our national debt is $1.4 Trillion in 2009 and government has seized huge sections of the economy - and trying for more. Obama's 2010 budget proposal and his desire for socialized medicine will keep the Federal Deficit rising at a similar pace for next year. His Roosevelt Strategy of creating a bigger government and increasing the roles of welfare will hurt America for years to come.

The LBJ Strategy:
The father of the "Great Society" left a blueprint for Obama to follow. One of the main goals of the Great Society policy was the elimination of poverty. Did it work? It hasn't, and the policy gave America huge spending liabilities in education, medical care, urban inner-cities, and transportation. It was similar to the New Deal in scope and expanded Federal powers beyond the Constitutional limits. Obama's strategy of increasing America's liabilities to stratospheric height will do exactly what the "Great Society" did: It will expand the roles of poverty and continue the institutionalization of government as the sole provider of the family.

The Carter Strategy:
Carter built upon the foundation laid by LBJ. He created the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. Their combined budget is around $100,000,000,000 annually. HUD has failed society by not only creating the housing bubble that we are living through but also has done nothing to eliminate sub standard housing - its stated mission. The Energy Department's main goal of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil has also failed. In Carter's memory, Obama has mimicked him. He has created umpteen number of Executive level Czars and increased the 2010 budget of the entire Executive Branch by over 10% - at the same time inflation is running at 0%. Obama is following the policy of Carter by expanding the Executive branch's reach and creating government bureaucracies that do more harm than good.

The Reagan Strategy:
Ronald Regan is often referred to as the Great Communicator. He had a way of saying things that people believed in. Obama has studied this and gives passionate speeches similar to Reagan. And like Reagan he cut taxes to stimulate growth. Bot Obama is missing the boat, as he has mistaken the strategy of great speeches and tax cuts as a tactical tool for short term satisfaction. Unlike Reagan, the tax cuts Obama provided are only superficial. His staff is already laying the groundwork for a federal tax increases in 2010. And, there are already multiple proposals to increase taxes on everything from savings accounts, sugar drinks and retirement funds. And unlike Reagan, Obama's actions don't match his rhetoric. He talks free market, capitalism and less government. His actions are less free market, more socialism and increased government. Perhaps Obama's legacy will be the Great Miscommunicator. (I like this term- I might want to "coin the phrase" for the media)

The Clinton and Bush Strategy:
Clinton has been credited for a robust economy and reduced Federal debt. First the Federal debt increased every year Clinton was in office - so a reduced federal debt is a myth. Second Clinton rode the Internet bubble and passed the troubles to Bush. To Bush's credit, Bush didn't let the giant burst of the Internet Bubble become an impetus to create government bureaucracy. Bush focused on Terrorism and didn't watch the economy as close as he should. He could have reined in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but didn't. Bush rode the economic bubble these organization created and passed the troubles to Obama. Regardless, Obama is fortunate that all bubbles come and go - that free markets ebb and flow. Obama is fortunate that he cannot do enough damage to stop a recovery - or so we hope. He is using the natural ebb and flow of markets to dramatically increase the size of government. So he's doing little to help the economy and more to grow the government in hopes of building his own great society. He is building a government bubble.

Obama's strategy of moving America to the left is working, but his economic strategy is failing. The consequences of his action will create a burden for all Americans that want to contribute to society: More taxes, more rules, more government, more administration, more bureaucracy, more regulation, and less accountability. The economy is ebbing and Obama is flowing with "government".

U.S. Is No Longer Promoting Human Rights Across The Globe?

In my lifetime the U.S. has been a steady supporter of human rights around the world. We have always been the voice of the oppressed. We do get critized for issues in our own house (dealth penalty, abortion, woman rights, race issues...) but these are pretty superficial when you consider mass murder, systemic rape, and war. It now looks like the U.S. is turning a blind eye towards the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of teamming shore, the homeless, and tempest-tossed. It seems all of Obama's talk on human rights is just that - talk. The U.S. newest policy is that good diplomatic relations are more important than human rights.

Obama has - yet again - a great quote which appears at odds with his policy and actions. "Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction." His moral compass is pointing in another direction than mine.

China trashes human rights, jails dissidents without trail, restricts religion and is in gross violation of child labor laws, forced sex trade and women's rights. But Obama, the first President to do so, doesn't seem to care and has not critized China for any human rights abuse since he became President. On April 1, Obama met with President Hu Jintao of China and failed to even discuss Human Rights. Also, to avoid upsetting China, President Obama decided to wait until after he visits China in November before meeting with the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists - who was on Capitol Hill in October. This is a gross slap in the face to Tibetians. In June, Liu Xiaobo, a leading democracy leader in China, was sentenced for inciting subversion of state power. Obama and the State Department remained quite - as the rest of the world objected. Obama doesn't believe it is in America's interest to be the voice of the oppressed in China. With his actions he has shown that China's purchasing of our debt is more important that ensuring China continues on their path away from Socialism and towards Democracy and Capitalism.

Obama has shown his true colors several times now. He was quite for over a week after the Iran leaders stole the election. While the rest of the world was screaming at Iran for stealing an election, Obama said, "It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran...What I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was..." His actions duplicated his words - in this instance. He has done nothing. In other words, The U.S. doesn't care if Iran violates the most basic human rights, we think our relationship with their government is more important. Iran is now sentencing democracy leaders to years in jail.

When President Zelaya of Honduras was removed from his post for violating the Honduran Constitution, Obama fought for reinstatement of Zelaya. Zelaya is a close friend of Hugo Chavez and a staunch Socialist. His attempt to change the Honduran Constitution to allow him to stay in power - like Chavez - was in direct violation of the Constitution. It doesn't matter to us: Obama said "I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference." In other words, we support the socialist and won't interfere with any rights in Honduras. We have yet to provide any support for the leaders who are attempting to ensure democracy and protect human rights.

President Obama has yet to make a profound statement against a country that violates human rights. Obama apparently believes that good government relations and being liked is more important than advancing the causes of the depressed. The advancement of extreme fundamentalist Islam, The advancement of Socialism, and the loss of Democarcy is not the problems of America under's Obama's watch. However, future Presidents will be haunted by Obama's lack of action on human rights. Maybe we should temporarily take the words off the statue of liberty....

Muslims need to create a counterbalance to their fanatics..

I typically don't want to besmirch or talk bad about any religion. I do believe the U.S. should stay a Christian nation, but I appreciate other religions. I also believe that Islam has many, many good people, but they are being sabotaged by religious zealots. What disheartens me about this, is that there is only muted outrage in the Muslim community to the actions of the zealots. Why? And, why isn't NOW protesting Sharia Law instead of U.S. corporations? Where is the outrage over these zealots enforcing strict sharia law? I don't want to tell anyone how to live. My morals are obviously different than others, but some of this is just wrong...

• Women whipped and forced to shake their breast for wearing bras
• Beyonce cancels show in Malaysia in fear of her life
• Woman stoned to death for adultery
• Circus acts such as fire-eating and lying on a bed of glass are outlawed by Sharia law
• Women arrested for wearing pants
• Two Journalist sentenced to death for unspecific crimes against Islam
• Bali Bomber incites terrorism and calls U.S. a terrorist country
• Father forces 10 year old daughter to marry 80 year old man
• Islamic fighters behead 7 prisoners accused of abandoning the Muslim faith and spying
• Sudanese Journalist 'Ready for 40,000 Lashes' for Wearing 'Indecent' Trousers
• Family Burned to Death after Koran is 'Defiled'
• Sex braggart gets 1000 lashes and 5 years
• 12 year old dies giving birth after forced marriage
• 10 year old in arranged marriage gets beat
• New Law allows stoning and flogging for gay sex and adultery
• Armed Hamas officers stopped men from sitting shirtless and more Islamic laws
• Koran slur angers mob
• Homosexuality is punishable by death
• Clerics outraged at beauty queen for not wearing veil during contest
• Muslim woman trying to fake their virginity draws ire of clerics
• Woman stoned for refusing to give her husband a divorce

And the list goes on and on. I know there are some great people who are Muslim - some are friends. What I don't understand is where is the counter force to the extremism. Many wars in this world have some form of Islamic issue involved. Why is this being tolerated by Muslims who are not at war? Yes, the U.S. history is closely tied to Europe and the Christian faith, and we had our centuries of intolerance. And, there is still some intolerance and bigotry - but it is countered by a larger voice. The majority of people in the Christian world don't believe you should stone adulterers or homosexuals. They may not like it, but they don't want to kill over it. So why is the largest religion in the world not creating a counterbalance to the fanatics. I want to investigate the why. I'm afraid of what I will find, but my curiosity is peeking...

Profit motives are causing problems for America - according to Obama

I just heard on CNN a Democrat talking head discussing the fact the Obama embraces capitalism and supports American business. She says he is the farthest from socialism that a President can get. Also, she had the audacity to say that businesses love Obama. Say what??? That must be the Audacity of Hope!

Obama does say to companies and businesses he support them - when he talks to them, but he is one of those people who speak of the mysterious "they". He throws around comments that paints a broad brush across entire industries. He caters to his liberal conspiracy ridden base by telling them that pretty much all big business is evil and profit is wrong. He says it in way that sounds so nice and non-menacing - to those that really just want a good sound bite. It's kind of like a Mother-in-Law telling you she likes you, but the family knows her real meaning is something else because of her actions and what she says to other behind closed doors. Obama is that Mother-in-Law.

This is a great quote. "You have shown what history teaches us — that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington." Obama said it, and I like it. He talks a good story and has many other notable quotes. Too bad he doesn't believe it. For him it appears to be that all change is coming from Washington


Oil Companies are evil!
A March 2008 advertisement: "I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more." He implies that oil companies are evil and people should not trust them (because they make a profit! - Gasp)

A policy paper from Obama during the election discusses taking the profits from the oil companies because oil companies don't do any good.


Coal Industry is evil!
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted." This quote has been debated on the Internet, but read the whole thing and understand he means the coal industry is evil.


Obama's EPA said in a letter to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources that the state didn’t meet requirements under the Clean Air Act in part of its proposed permit for the plant. So thus they can't bring a New Coal power plant up on line.



Profit is evil
"But all this hasn't stopped the big financial firms and their lobbyists from mobilizing against change...They're doing what they always do -- descending on Congress and using every bit of influence they have to maintain the status quo that has maximized their profits at the expense of American consumers." So Obama and Democractic friends don't lobby Congress, right? And by using the words big financial firm he plays to his base and puts every company that deals in finance in an evil pot.

"And so it is no surprise, perhaps, that those who feel they would profit financially or politically have come out swinging furiously to try to kill reform. " Oh my goodness. People profit financially and they don't want to lose this profit!

"The proposal he was talking about would cut the middle man out of student lending by shifting federal support entirely to the Direct Loan program, and away from the program that cushions bank profits" Again, profiting from anything is wrong.

Credit Card companies are evil
"Americans know that they have a responsibility to live within their means and pay what they owe. But they also have a right to not get ripped off by the sudden rate hikes, unfair penalties, and hidden fees that have become all-too common in our credit card industry." Let's use a broad paint brush and say that all the problems with the credit industry are caused by the credit card companies.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is evil
" a financial system that's never been more complicated, it has never been more important to have a watchdog function like the one we've proposed. And yet, predictably, a lot of the banks and big financial firms don't like the idea of a consumer agency very much. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending millions on an ad campaign to kill it." Oh my goodness. An association that supports business in America is trying to stop him from socializing everything!

The Insurance Industry is evil
"In fact, the insurance industry is rolling out the big guns and breaking open their massive war chest – to marshal their forces for one last fight to save the status quo" Now why would they do this? Obama just keeps vilifying them and saying they are the problem.

"They’re filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads. They’re flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they’re funding studies designed to mislead the American people." Or maybe they are providing the side of the story he isn't. And wouldn't the FTC be shutting down these advertisements if they were patently false?

He says many other things that support business. He has some endearing quotes. His speeches are filled with some awesome American sound bites. But the words he chooses and his big government actions are consistent with socialism. He spreads the words that free-enterprise businesses are all bad and profit is an evil motivator. With his words, he implies that only Washington is the answer to all the worldly woes. In his mind change comes from Washington.

Is Health Care on the same path as Housing in America?

As part of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act was signed into law in 1965. This act created an executive department of the U.S. government, entitled "Housing and Urban Development" or more commonly known as HUD. HUD's mission is to increase home ownership, support community development and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.

Through the years HUD has assumed responsibility for most areas of housing and urban development. In 2010 HUD's budget is $46.3 Billion dollars. This will be augmented with an additional $13.6 Billion in "Stimulus funding". Thus their total 2010 budget will be $60 Billion dollars. Traditionally there has been three big programs run by HUD, although there have been additional requirements of HUD added to the department in recent years.

1. HUD is responsible through it's Federal Housing Administration of regulation Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These two organizations have been vehemently protected by the Democratic party and can account for nearly 23% of all housing loans in America. With the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, signed by Jimmy Carter, as their major driver for increasing home ownership, they helped create financial vehicles to help people - who couldn't afford to buy a house - purchase a house. Most economist agree that these two organizations either caused or were a major contributing factor of the housing bubble of 2007/08 -which in turn created a major recession.
2. HUD is responsible for Section 8 housing which came out of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Section 8 housing has been a colossal failure. In the book "America’s Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake", the author, Howard Husock, explains how, "as with so many anti-poverty efforts, low-income housing programs have harmed those they were meant to help while causing grave collateral damage to cities and their citizens." Urban blight, sub standard housing, and homelessness has continued to grow under this program. Mr Husock is the director of public policy case studies at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. ~ a left leaning school.
3. HUD is responsible for housing on Indian reservations. The American government has been involved in housing for American Indians for over 150 years - way before the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. As of today, the Federal Government has not created any substantial headway in creating the infrastructure nor the support system to address housing problems of the American Indians. This is the conclusion of another left leaning school paper - Harvard University. (Although the author of this paper says it is due to lack of funding - hence more government). Indian country has six times the rate of substandard housing as the general U.S. public.

Has HUD been a success and fulfilled the mission set forth by Lyndon's Great Society? So, why would you want them to run health care?