Tuesday, December 23, 2008


The Census Bureau has released population figures for the country as of July, 2008. Only two states (Louisiana and North Dakota) decreased during the period. Louisiana does not surprise me but North Dakota did. The fastest growing state on a percentage basis is Nevada.

The fastest growing Region is the West, followed by the South. Overall the US population has risen 8% since 2000.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008


Currently the UN is meeting in Poland to discuss the Topic of Man-Made Global Warming. The 52 Scientists who authored the UN IPCC are opposed by the 650 Scientists (including former members affiliated with the UN). The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Members page has published many articles and facts which do not support the UN IPCC. UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims highlights the fact that 12 times as many scientists disagree with the UN's 52 who agree.
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Also featured on the Minority Page of this US Senate Committee are links to FACTS. Interesting FACTS such as the PLEDGE which Al Gore asked the people of the World to sign, the Goracle will not himself SIGN. Ask yourself why!!! For all of us, the matter of Global Warming is a matter of concern. But is Global Warming Man-Made? and therefore something we need to act on with drastic measures? More and More Scientiests are saying NO!!!
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. [Emphasis mine]
Clearly the words of AL GORE "It's Settled" are not true. It is time for doing what we can to preserve the planet, but the DRASTIC Political solutions the "Chicken Little" types are calling for are not warranted at this time.

More and more FACTS are pointing to the fact that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not the cause of Global Warming and therefore Man-Made CO2 is not the cause of Global Warming. How do I know that? Since 2001 the temperature of the Earth has not increased while the CO2 levels have significantly increased.

World Cools On Man-Made Global Warming

Monday, December 8, 2008


WE HAVE BECOME COMPLACENT - THAT'S DANGEROUS. Complacent about the real threat of another Terrorist Attack aka 9/11 in the USA. Ray Kelly is the Police Commissioner in New York City. Mr. Kelly is in a position to know what is possible, but are the authorities listening? Ray Kelly's Wiretap Alarm says not nearly enough to prevent an attack similar to Mumbai, India.
India's three days of carnage stand as another warning about how easily terrorists can perpetrate a major attack. So when top New York City counterterrorism officials declare that U.S. intelligence laws are shackling their powers to prevent the next Mumbai, it ought to raise more than eyebrows.
After reading this article please ask yourself if total privacy is worth the loss of life this privacy allows? Or should we give up some reasonable amount of personal privacy to save lives by preventing the Terrorists from using American Legal Procedures to Handcuff the authorities? So when Mr. Kelly speaks are the right people listening? NO!
Instead, almost nobody seems to care. Seven years without an attack on the U.S. mainland has created a growing public complacency. And the anti-antiterror lobby has exploited that complacency to assail and constrain critical Bush Administration intelligence programs, making it harder to intercept terrorists before they strike. As a consequence innocent Americans may be killed.
We need to open our collective eyes to how much the success of the Bush Administration has wrought. President Bush, despite the Democrat Liberals, have been able to prevent further attacks similar to 9/11 and Mumbai. But the success has come at the price of reducing the perceived danger.
What Democrats have done, in essence, is to insert an unelected judiciary into the wartime chain of command. As Mr. Kelly notes, this is producing a "lack of accountability" and "the lack of transparency into the inner workings of the FISA process." If some faceless FISA judge denies a surveillance request from Mr. Kelly and New Yorkers die as a result, that judge will answer to no one. Under current FISA rules, we won't even know who that judge is. Meanwhile, the very Members of Congress who insisted on FISA's limitations will blame the executive branch that they put under the supervision of those anonymous judges.
There is no supportable justification for the current restrictions on warrant-less wiretaps for communications which originate or end outside the USA. Those afraid of losing their privacy due to Government Warrant-Less Wiretaps in these cases are generally the same people who gladly use services like "On-Star" and "Lojack". Both these services allow 24-7 monitoring of our driving. We surrender our privacy for this Intrusion, but not to prevent Lives From Being Lost. Remember this "Big Blue Button" privacy mentality when NSA, FISA and Warrant-Less Wiretaps are attacked.

Personally I trust Ray Kelly a Hell-of-a-lot more than the Liberal Congress.

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Price of Tradition Rising

Every year (for the last 24) the cost of one of the more popular Christmas Songs has been calculated. And the Cost of "The Twelve Days of Christmas" has risen faster than the Consumer Price Index (CPI). TRUE LOVES TO FACE MOST EXPENSIVE CHRISTMAS EVER AS PNC CHRISTMAS PRICE INDEX JUMPS 8.1 PERCENT IN 2008
PITTSBURGH, Dec. 1, 2008 – The PNC Christmas Price Index increased by a lavish 8.1 percent over last year, the second biggest leap in the history of the whimsical economic analysis by PNC Wealth Management based on the cost of gifts in the holiday classic, “The Twelve Days of Christmas.”

According to the 24th annual survey, the cost of the PNC CPI is $21,080 in 2008, $1,573 more than last year. The PNC CPI exceeds the U.S. government’s Consumer Price Index – the widely used measure of inflation calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Consumer Price Index is up 3.7 percent this year. The core CPI has increased 2.2 percent since Oct. of 2007.
Apparently the Swans are to blame for the biggest price increase; or at least the cost of them is.
The seven swans a-swimming proved to be a driver of this year’s index, carrying the greatest weight with a whopping 33.3 percent increase due to their scarcity. True Loves will spend $5,600 this year for Swans compared with $4,200 in 2007, accounting for $1,400 of the $1,573 increase. The swans typically have the largest swings in price in the PNC CPI.

Much like the government’s CPI, the PNC CPI also measures a "Core Index"—up just 1.1 percent this year - that excludes the swans. The core Consumer Price Index excludes volatile energy and food costs and is generally lower than the headline figure.
Those wishing to tighten the "Economic Belt", so to speak, might be tempted to substitute some other gift for the Swans. But the article adds a caution for those considering such a move. Remember it's not the cost, but rather the thought which counts.
“Omitting the seven swans a-swimming may be a tempting way for a True Love to hold the line on costs, but one would be advised to proceed with caution," warned James Dunigan, managing executive of investments for PNC Wealth Management.

“Because our analysts can only measure the actual cost of this seasonal treasure, not its sentimental value, True Loves may want to budget a little more carefully this year in order to purchase all the items in the song,” Dunigan said.
It appears that the cost of Birds includes the "Turtle Doves" too.
Large percentage increases were also seen in turtle doves (37.5 percent, to $56 from $40); partridges (33.3 percent, to $20.00 from $15.00) and pear trees (33.3 percent, to $199.99 from $149.99), according to PNC.
But there is some good news. The Cost of Some items fell this year.
True Loves will pay less for the five gold rings this year. Retail prices dropped by 11.4 percent (to $349.95 from $395) as retailers are trying to move luxury merchandise in light of concerns with the slowing economy, PNC found.

Two other costs in the CPI dropped this year: three French hens and Six geese-a-laying. This year the hens cost $30, a drop of 33.3 percent over last year, and the geese cost $240, falling one-third. Four calling birds remained steady, costing $599.96, the same as a year ago.
But the minimum wage is another cause for the increase.
As the only unskilled laborers in the Christmas Price Index, the eight maids a-milking received a raise for the second straight year, due to another increase in the federal minimum wage. Before 2007, they had not received a raise since 1997.

The federal minimum wage increased this year to $6.55 per hour, following last year’s $5.85. In the last two years, the maids a-milking have seen their wages rise by $1.40 per hour, an increase of 27 percent. Still, the maids will cost the True Love $52.40 this year, only $5.60 more than a year ago, a relative bargain in the PNC CPI.

The cost of most performers in the index—the drummers drumming, pipers piping and Llrds-a-leaping—jumped a modest 3 percent, essentially a cost-of-living increase, reflecting the current labor market in which the unemployment rate rose to 6.5 percent after sitting below 5 percent for much of the decade. Only the price for the Ladies Dancing was unchanged this year.
If you look for bargins by doing your shopping on-line, the figures are not good.
For those True Loves who prefer the convenience of shopping online, PNC Wealth Management calculates the cost of “The Twelve Days of Christmas” gifts purchased on the Web.

This year, the trends identified in the traditional index are repeated in the Internet version, with an overall price growth of 2.8 percent, significantly less than the traditional PNC CPI increase of 8.1 percent.

True Loves will pay a grand total of $31,957 to buy the items online, almost $11,000 more than in the traditional index.
The Bottom Line is ...
As part of its annual tradition, PNC Wealth Management also tabulates the “True Cost of Christmas,” which is the total cost of items gifted by a True Love who repeats all of the song’s verses. This holiday season, very generous True Loves will pay more than ever before—$86,609—for all 364 items, up from $78,100 in 2007, a staggering 10.9 percent increase.
PNC also provides a link for a Historical look at the cost of "The Twelve Days of Christmas".(www.pncchristmaspriceindex.com)

Tuesday, December 2, 2008


According to this New York Times Article (Panel Fears Use of Unconventional Weapon), the world will face a Nuclear, Biological or other Unconventional Attack by 2013. For those of you who thought the War on Terror was limited to Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden, this is your wake-up call.
An independent commission has concluded that terrorists will most likely carry out an attack with biological, nuclear or other unconventional weapons somewhere in the world in the next five years unless the United States and its allies act urgently to prevent that. [Emphasis mine]
More importantly, are we the USA ready for a possible Terrorist attack using Unconventional Weapons? For that matter, are we ready for an attack like the Mumbai, India attack of last week?
In a report to be released this week, the Congressionally mandated panel found that with countries like Iran and North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons programs, and with the risk of poorly secured biological pathogens growing, unconventional threats are fast outpacing the defenses arrayed to confront them.
At the same time, the American people have become complacent. Complacent because President George Bush has done such a good job of preventing attacks.
“America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” the bipartisan panel concluded.
I must admit that so far, to my surprise, President Elect Obama has shown a retreat from his Primary Rhetoric concerning the Terror Threat that exists in the World. Hopefully this will continue to translate into an extension of the Patriot Act and support for the NSA and/or other Intelligence Gathering Activities.
Prepared before last week’s deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai — which American officials say were most likely carried out by Pakistani militant groups based in Kashmir — the report also singled out Pakistan as a top security priority for the coming Obama administration.
Mumbai shows we cannot take Intelligence Information on Terrorist Activities lightly. Apparently India's Government did. Fortunately for India, the Terrorists were overly optimistic about the casualties their attack would inflict.
“Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013,” the report states in the opening sentence of the executive summary.
This opening sentence is a chilling look at the present situation. We need to be pro-active and act now, unless we wish to be re-active later. As this paragraph from this article indicates, we need to shift our focus and attention to a much higher level.
Like the 9/11 Commission, this panel called for overhauling the jurisdiction of the Congressional committee that reviews the proliferation of unconventional weapons. “Congressional oversight is dysfunctional,” the report concluded. [Emphasis mine]
Hopefully since this was a Bi-Partisan Congressional Committee, President Elect Obama and our House and Senate are listening. One last thought - THIS REPORT SAYS BY THE END OF 2013, BUT DOES NOT RULE OUT TOMORROW!!!

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Will Obama, Pelosi and Reid Agree?

The "Chicken Little" group that Al Gore and his ilk lead have set the stage for this. Lawyers call for international court for the environment which would set punishments for Nations and Companies who violate wildlife and environmental policy.
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.

But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment". [Emphasis mine]
The Scientists cannot agree (despite what the Goracle says) that Global Warming is man made. Yet some International Judge is going to decide the fate of those who don't abide by the "Chicken Little's" of the world? What kind of justice is this?

The evidence is proving that man is not responsible for any Global Warming due to an increase in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels. It is a fact that CO2 levels have continued to increase, but the temperature since 2001 has not. Therefore the Computer Models are WRONG!!! So these lawyers want to punish the innocent for something which cannot be proven.World Cools On Man-Made Global Warming

Is it any wonder Lawyers have such a bad reputation?

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Give Thanks

Today is Thanksgiving, and for me there are several things to be thankful for.

I am thankful for the military and the "Commander In Chief", George Bush for taking the fight to the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am thankful for the International, National and Local Police and security personal who, because President George Bush emphasized the Terror Threats, have kept the US from enduring another Terror Attack on American Soil.

I am thankful for my wonderful Wife, three grown daughters and one grand-daughter who for the most part bring joy into my daily life.

I am thankful that I live in a country as Great as the USA.

I am thankful for the right to worship my God.

I am thankful for many other things, but the above represents the short list.

Finally, I am thankful for the opportunity to say Happy Thanksgiving to all of you.

Murky Research

A Time for Thanksgiving
Obama's debt of gratitude to George W. Bush.
by Jules Crittenden
12/01/2008, Volume 014, Issue 11

As the transition progresses and Barack Obama's inauguration draws closer, it's a good moment to mull the gifts George W. Bush has left for the incoming president. Bush has made the world a better place, and if Obama wants to do the same, he will take the good things Bush has done and move forward with them.

Early indicators are in fact positive. In foreign policy, possibly embarrassed by the eagerness with which the world's most vile regimes have welcomed his election, Obama is backing off his many promises to sit down with dictators. His antiwar base is already outraged that he may not make closing the hated "Crusader gulag" at Guantánamo Bay his first act of national liberation from the Bush era. He is even reportedly considering allowing the CIA some leeway in interrogation techniques.

In the critical field of war and foreign policy, there are quite a few things for which President-elect Obama can thank George Bush.

First and foremost, Saddam Hussein-a state sponsor of terrorism, a producer of weapons of mass destruction, a warmonger, and a genocidal maniac-is gone. The threat he posed was a nagging concern to Bill Clinton, but Clinton, lacking the political will or perhaps a good excuse, was content to consider Saddam trapped in a box. George W. Bush didn't have that luxury. After the September 11 attacks the stakes were raised and Bush understood the world could not tolerate the presence of someone like Saddam, who defied all international challenges and was actively subverting the restraints upon him.

For the last five years, Saddam has been viewed, in retrospect, as having been harmless, but that is only because he was deposed and captured by forces acting on George Bush's orders, then tried and hanged by the Iraqi people. The Baathist regime is no more.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

That difficult task, which required the terrible resolve to send men to their deaths and also required several painful readjustments of strategy and tactics, was done in time so that Obama should be able to fulfill his campaign promise of getting out of Iraq and ramping up in Afghanistan.

It will be possible for Obama to draw down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq without a precipitous, premature withdrawal that could plunge the region into genocidal chaos and leave Iran the de facto regional power. Iraq is peaceful enough now that a policy fudge by Obama there-unlike on the Guantánamo issue-is something his liberal backers are unlikely to hold against him.

With minor policy adjustments that no one will notice, much less begrudge, he can stay past his 16-month deadline and continue to build Iraq as a beacon of democracy and a U.S. ally in the Middle East. Iraq's cabinet has approved a deal asking U.S. forces to stay until 2012, and Iraq's free parliament has been debating the matter in a highly spirited fashion-including fisticuffs-not unlike the early congressional proceedings of another nascent democracy.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

In the 1990s, anyone who told you Iraq would be a functioning, U.S.-allied democracy within a few short years would have been laughed out of the room. It has come at tremendous cost in both American and Iraqi lives. It is reasonable to assume, however, given the massive ethnic blood toll Saddam inflicted to maintain his regime, that establishing a Western-leaning Iraqi democracy has been accomplished with only a fraction of the violence that would have taken place absent U.S. intervention. Iran, while it meddles and wields deadly influence, has been kept at arm's length in the process, when Iran and Syria might both have been expected to descend on a post-Saddam Iraq. This highly dangerous region is stable-and has hope of remaining so.

The very concept of democracy in the region received a major boost when Arabs saw millions of Iraqis voting while under threat of death. This evolution is playing out in fits and starts in Lebanon and even the Palestinian territories, where voters have learned that the democratic process only begins with a vote. When Hamas chose to reward its backers with a bloodbath and international isolation, George Bush used that opportunity to draw an unprecedented gathering for former adversaries together to talk peace. Meanwhile, the very delicate Pakistan has advanced, with U.S. support, from military rule to elected civilian rule and remains an ally, if a problematic one, in America's war on Islamic extremism.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

George Bush has put a bow on his gift. The U.S. military's leading counterinsurgency warrior-philosopher, General David Petraeus, who resolved the initial mistakes of the Iraq occupation, now commands U.S. forces in the entire region, including Afghanistan. As some of the same voices that despaired in Iraq, declaring quagmires and demanding precipitous withdrawal, turn their despair to Afghanistan, Obama goes into battle without having to search for his Grant. He's already been found.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

The nuclear arms race in the Middle East was checked after 2003 when Iraq was cut out of it, Libya surrendered, and Iran momentarily halted its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran is back in the game, and apparently Syria as well, but Europe and the U.N. have come into line with George Bush on Iran, recognizing that ultimately someone must be willing to use force when all else fails. Bush has demonstrated to Obama that it is possible to negotiate from a position of strength with the international blessing that Obama craves.

Iran is perhaps the greatest challenge Obama will face. It requires him to be willing to take action on his own and not simply manage what was initiated by Bush. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran is one that threatens to upset the pro-democracy, pro-American balance of power Bush has painstakingly created.

There is one thing Bush did not do for Obama, a key bit of unfinished business in a midwar transition. Bush failed to increase the number of U.S. ground forces in the immediate post-9/11 period when Congress would have signed a blank check. As a result, Obama will become commander in chief of an overstressed military at a time when there is still more fighting to be done. To establish himself as a wartime president and show that he is serious about America's obligations and vital interests in the world, Obama, among his first acts as president, must make an effort to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.

George W. Bush did not solve all the problems of the world's most troubled and dangerous region. But, for all his shortcomings, he has moved them forward and established the United States as the dominant agent for change in the Middle East. Consider the mess Obama would be inheriting in the region if the Bush administration had just sat on its thumbs-Ahmadinejad's Iran with an even further advanced nuclear arms program, an aging Saddam installing one of his psychopathic sons in power or Iraq being torn apart in a genocidal nightmare. Imagine all the regimes of the region, unchastened and unimpressed by the U.S. exercise of power, looking for any weakness or advantage to exploit and quite possibly finding it in al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Bush has set conditions that could allow Obama, if he abandons the desire to be liked as the underlying principle of his foreign policy and sticks to the path the Bush administration has laid out, to preside over the greatest blossoming of liberal democracy and stability the Middle East has ever seen, and in all likelihood, to get the credit for it.

For all of this, Barack Obama owes George W. Bush a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Jules Crittenden is an editor at the Boston Herald and blogs at JulesCrittenden.com.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

President Elect Obama

To this point I have refrained from making any comments about the President Elect Obama and the "Office of the President Elect" (whatever that's about). But the time has come to comment.

As Barack Obama has demonstrated from his days as a "Community Organizer", the rhetoric is great. But how is this change? President Elect Obama's announcements of advisors signals more of a Third Clinton Term, than "change we can believe in". Admittedly he has no Executive Powers at present and will not until Jan 20, 2009, so I remain hopeful that change is going to happen during an Obama Presidency.

At the same time, Barack Obama has no record of action which matches his words. In fact he talks center, but has always voted extreme left. A change in January would be most welcome, but history says his words are feel good empty promises.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Obama's Theme Song

Obama will increase our taxes, and he will also increase our Energy, especially electric, costs, etc. Electricity bill will skyrocket under the Obama plan. He wants to bankrupt the coal users.

Oh, that includes Steel Costs too because coal in the form of coke is used to make steel.

And here is one Iraq Vet on Obama.

Thanks, Senator Obama!!!

Friday, October 24, 2008

Voters, Wise UP

Congress is currently considering another Rebate to stimulate the economy. This will not solve the current economic crisis. How can a responsible Congress look at the National Debt, which is currently more than $10,000,000,000,000.00!!! Folks that's Over 10 Trillion Dollars we don't have.

Congress needs a wake-up up call!!! We are the Voters who allow these irresponsible windbags to $pend our money. We put them in office and, if we wake up, we can take them out.

It is up to the Voters, YOU, to stop this nonsense. Congress must be held accountable. They cannot keep spending the money we don't have.

You make the call. You decide who to vote for. Before you do, use your brain. Use your ears to process what the candidates are saying they will do.

Obama and the Democrats want to raise taxes. Now forget the part that says only those who make over $250,000.00, because his spending programs cannot possibly be funded only by the rich. Why? Because the $250,000 is only for Families where both taxpayers work. For the Single wage taxpayer it's $125,000. Second, with 40% of the tax returns resulting in no Tax Liability, it is a $pend program. Third, his World Poverty, World Health and other World $pending Programs, will cost Trillions of dollars more than his tax program can produce.

And if Obama's World $pending already outpaces his Tax Cuts, what happens when you add the increases and new $pending for the US. Even if we pull out of Iraq, there is still not enough money to offset the Obama $pending Mandate.

This kind of $pending is IRRESPONSIBLE and will lead to 1)higher taxation 2)reducing the $250,000 tax cut levels 3)higher National debt or 4)a combination or all of the above.

Democrats other than Obama/Biden are beginning to say more taxation is necessary. Barney Frank (D-MA), for one, recently said we need to raise taxes. None of the Democrats are saying we need to Reduce Spending. The Democrats were quick to point out that we cannot Drill our way out of Foreign Oil Dependence, but the Democrats are equally adament that we can $pend our way out of an Economic Crisis.

Look at these two ideas. Democrats are correct about not being able to Drill our way out of Foreign Oil Dependence, but we can DECREASE our dependence by Drilling in the US. On the other hand, the Democrats are wrong about $pending money we don't have to solve our Economic Crisis, because increased $pending and Higher Taxes only add to the problem of our National Debt.

Simply put, we need our Congress to cut spending. We need our Congress to follow the example of the other developed countries of the World and keep taxes low. Lower taxes actually increase revenue as individual and corporate expansion grows. More income and more corporate profits due to lower taxes creates more tax revenue than higher rates and reduced income and profit. And when Business Grows, WE ADD JOBS.

Raising Taxes and Increasing Government $pending was the policy of the Hoover Presidency. It helped create the Depression and inhibited growth for individuals and corporations for the next 10 years.

So it's up to YOU the VOTERS, to choose wisely. Vote for those who will reduce our Federal, State and Local $pending. I will remind you that ONLY John McCain has said he wants to reduce The Federal $pending. Yes he opposed the Bush Tax Cuts in Congress, but do you know why? He voted against the Bush Tax Cuts BECAUSE there were no corresponding $pending Cuts.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Obama's Comment

With all the current bashing of "Joe the Plumber" by the Media, it is easy to loose sight of the real issue.

The real issue was not "Joe". It was Obama's answer. Obama's words "share the wealth" is the issue.

Why? These words indicate how Socialistic Obama's view of America is.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Who Is Barack Obama

Three recent articles from respected sources have some interesting information about Senator Obama and what Senator Obama really stands for.
  1. Investors' Real Fear: A Socialist Tsunami Investors Business Daily
  2. Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around' Fox News
  3. Obama's 95% Illusion Wall Street Journal Online
All of the publications make the case for Mr. Obama taking the Country far to the Left. In fact Senator Obama's ideas are very Socialistic in nature.

First consider the Investors Business Daily article Investors' Real Fear: A Socialist Tsunami.
The freeze-up of the financial system — and government's seeming inability to thaw it out — are a main concern, no doubt. But more people are also starting to look across the valley, as they say, at what's in store once this crisis passes.

And right now it looks like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible [Emphasis Mine].
How is this going to be made possible?
It isn't only that the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party is favored to take the White House. It's that he'll also have a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal.

Throw in a media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises, and it's no wonder panic has set in. [Emphasis mine]
The Economy is the main issue at present. So how will Senator Obama's agenda affect the Economy?
What is that agenda? It starts with a tax system right out of Marx: A massive redistribution of income — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need — all in the name of "neighborliness," "patriotism," "fairness" and "justice."

It continues with a call for a new world order that turns its back on free trade, has no problem with government controlling the means of production, imposes global taxes to support continents where our interests are negligible, signs on to climate treaties that will sap billions more in U.S. productivity and wealth, and institutes an authoritarian health care system that will strip Americans' freedoms and run up costs. [Emphasis mine]
Holly Cow!! What else can this agenda be called besides Socialism? Do we really want to join and follow Europe's failed policies? One of Senator Obama's policies is to send $50 Billion a year to foreign countries, which Senator Obama calls Foreign Aid. Couldn't we better use that money here? How does any of this massive Tax and $pend agenda help secure our oil Independence? How does a greater Tax and $pend agenda help our Businesses Grow?
The businesses that create jobs and generate wealth are already discounting the future based on what they know about Obama's plans to raise income, capital gains, dividend and payroll taxes, and his various other economy-crippling policies. Which helps explain why world stock markets have been so topsy-turvy.

But don't take our word for it. One hundred economists, five Nobel winners among them, have signed a letter noting just that:

"The prospect of such tax-rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy," they wrote, noting that the potential of higher taxes in the next year or two is reducing hiring and investment.
If you want to control something, reward that which you want more of, and punish what you want less of - Classic Carrot and Stick principles. Apparently, Senator Obama applies this principle in reverse. Punishing a Business Owner, a Job Creator, is not the way to expand an Economy. The last time raising Taxes in a downturn Economy Happened, President Hoover was in Office. We spent the next 10 years in a Depression. Why would the result of Senator Obama's agenda of Tax and $pend result in anything different? It Will Not!!!

As proof of what Senator Obama's agenda will mean, look at what he said recently. Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around' reports on Senator Obama's words to a Plumber at a campaign speech.
Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies. [Emphasis mine]
Senator Obama's agenda is a "Robin Hood" take from the rich and give to the poor agenda. So no one thinks this statement is taken out of context, Here is the full exchange.
"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Is there any way this attitude can be characterized as anything other than Socialistic and Anti-Capitalistic?

In the third article, Obama's 95% Illusion makes the argument that Senator Obama's agenda is a Redistribution of Income and therefore by definition Socialistic.
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut." [Emphasis mine]
It doesn't matter how you slice it, when about 40% of all Americans, (those who pay not income tax now), get a check from the Government, it's not a "Tax Cut". It's Welfare, a handout. This requires a "Redistribution of Wealth".
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles. [Emphasis mine]
Except for the 'clean car' credit, these are refundable credits. That means even if you have no tax liability, the Government will give you a check for these credits. That's Welfare, or Redistribution of Wealth.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is. [Emphasis mine]
And that's not all.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year.
How will this help our Economy? It Will Not!! We cannot afford to turn our backs on the system that has made us the richest country in the world.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Obama Tax Cut Redistribution of Income

Yes, That's What The Obama Tax Cut for 95% of Americans really is Redistribution of Income. That's A Nice Way of Saying SOCIALISM. Today's Online Opinion Journal piece (Obama's Magic) makes this point clearly.
... Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show. [Emphasis mine]
A Take from the "Haves" and give it to the "Have Nots". And Obama will stimulate the Economy by doing the following.
Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. [Emphasis mine]
We all tend to think of Jobs Creation in terms of Big Corporations, But the reality is - The Small Business Owner is the one who creates Most of the Jobs in America. The Small Business Owner creates Jobs 1, 2 or 5 at a time. Mr. Obama wants to tax and take Profits of these Small Business Owners. Think about that. If Taxes eat more of their profits, how will the Small Business Owner fund the Equipment, Facilities and Benefits to expand and thereby Create more Jobs?
Mr. Obama will re-regulate the economy, with no ill effects whatsoever! You may have heard that for the past 40 years most politicians believed deregulation was good for the U.S. economy. You might have even heard that much of today's financial mess tracks to loose money policy, or Fannie and Freddie excesses. Our magician will show the fault was instead with our failure to clamp down on innovation and risk-taking, and will fix this with new, all-encompassing rules.
The problem is not De-Regulation. The Problem was lack of Oversight. The Problem was the Politicians who looked the other way, because they were getting Campaign Contributions from the guilty. The fox guarding the hen house.

We are shocked when the Police take bribes from the Bank Robbers, but we don't demand more regulation of the Crooks. No, instead we demand more oversight on the part of the Police. And we prosecute those Crooked Cops who took the Bribes. But with Politicians it's different. When they take a Legal Bribe (Campaign Contribution) we don't demand prosecution. We decide with help from those same guilty Politicians that the problem was caused by de-regulation. It was lack of Oversight by the Politicians. The Politicians are the guilty ones.
Did someone in the audience just shout "Sarbanes Oxley?" Usher, can you remove that man? Thank you. Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do. Mr. Obama will follow this with a demonstration of how his plan will differ from our failing Medicare program. Oops, sorry, folks.
Sarbanes Oxley is a flawed piece of Regulation which only increases the cost of operating a business. It should be eliminated. Government Regulation is not the answer, Proper Oversight and Proper Punishment are the answers.
And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut -- all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he'll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! [Emphasis mine]
It is called $pend, $pend, $pend and $pend some more!!! Mr. Obama's plan includes spending $50 Billion a year on Foreign Aid! That's a 100% Increase over current levels. Could we use $50 Billion a year in the USA?
Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies.
Mr. Obama is full of platitudes and feel good words, but the substance is Re-Distribution of Wealth.
Obama will uphold America's "moral" obligation to "stop genocide" by abandoning Iraq!
Mr. Obama thinks that we have a "Moral" obligation to "Stop Genocide" worldwide, but the Genocide of Saddam Husain against the Kurds is not reason enough to go into Iraq. Saddam may not have had Weapons of Mass Distruction (WMD)when we went into Iraq, but everyone agrees Saddam used WMD to kill many Thousands of Kurdish People.

Mr. Obama supports Abortion at any time right up to the moment of birth for any reason. Even Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) finds Partial-Birth Abortion objectionable, and Senator Boxer has always been recognized as the strongest advocate for preserving Roe v Wade in Congress. That is until Senator Obama. Mr. Obama also believes any fetus born alive shall be dened care and left to die if the fetus was born as a result of a botched abortion attempt. Most reasonable people would call anything alive outside the woman's body a child, a person. Not Mr. Obama.

To most reasonable people, who believe in Abortion, consider abortion a right of a woman to choose because it's her body. But it is hard to extend this right to include a child who is no longer in the womans body. It is not a person and deserves the same rights as you and I do. Mr. Obama does not agree.
He will respect your Second Amendment rights even as he regulates firearms! He will renegotiate Nafta, even as he supports free trade!
Yes, there are other areas where Mr. Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. And who is most to blame for letting Mr. Obama do his majic? JOHN McCAIN! Mr. McCain has allowed Mr. Obama free reign to say anything he wishes without question. All the things in this post are weakness of Mr. Obama, John McCain seems for some reason unwilling to point out and by so doing is giving the Election to Senator Obama.

Because of this We the American Public are the biggest Loosers. Thanks, John.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Connect the Dots

Here is a list for your consideration:
  • Bernardine Dohrn
  • Bill Ayers
  • Sidley Austin
  • Chicago Annenberg Challenge
  • Antoin "Tony" Rezko
  • Penny Pritzker
  • Reverend Jeremiah Wright
  • Father Michael Pfleger
Then consider that all of these people and organizations have a close relationship to Barack Obama. Just as significant, Barack Obama has a close relationship with each of them, and that's not necessarily the same thing.

We may not agree with the views and actions of every individual and group with which we individually have a relationship, but it is fair to judge our character by these relationship. And it does not matter when these unacceptable actions occurred. Past or present is not important. What is important is what we do after discovery. Once we discover unrepentant and/or radical behavior/views, our failure to disassociate ourselves from the offensive individual or group, indicates our true character and judgment. At the very least failure to disassociate from unrepentant individuals or groups signifies acceptance and tolerance for these actions.

Charles Krauthammer in today's Column (Obama & Friends: Judge Not?) makes much the same point.
Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.
Can you say double standard? Yes it is. One cannot believe that if instead of Obama, the friends belonged to McCain, that the Media and McCain supporters would use words like racism and McCarthyite associations in defence of McCain's relationships.
But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.
As Mr. Krauthammer makes clear, This is an Issue Hillary raised during the Primaries, and which John McCain should have raised months ago. But, while the Economy is in such sad shape, right now other issues just don't have the same impact or acceptance by the public.

Are they still just as important? Absolutely. According to Mr. Kruthammer these associations are important, not because Obama is a terrorist, a racist or a felon. They are important because they tell us two things about Obama's character.
First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" -- of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.
Obama is an opportunist. He looks at relationships from the standpoint of "How can this relationship help me?" And Mr. Obama is very adept at covering his tracks once the relationship advances his career.
Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse. [Italics in Original]
Now it is up to you the voter. Does the end justify the means? Is this acceptable behavior for a Man who wants to be the next President of the United States?

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

McCain vs Obama Round 2

Did the gloves come off? No. Senator McCain missed several opportunities to make his points and put Senator Obama on the defencive. One point was each time Senator Obama made reference to his income tax plan for America. Here is the Transcript of second McCain, Obama debate from which these quotes are taken.
So let's be clear about my tax plan and Sen. McCain's, because we're not going to be able to deal with entitlements unless we understand the revenues coming in. I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent. [Emphasis mine]
At this point Senator McCain could have pointed out that according to the IRS figures, 40% of the Americans who file tax returns pay no taxes. Therefore these 40% are really part of an Obama Spend Program, not a tax cut. You can't cut income taxes for those who don't pay an income tax. The Obama Tax Cut Plan is a Redistribution of Income.

Consider next this exchange.
Brokaw: Sen. Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.

Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.

What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?
Look closely at Senator Obama's reply.
Obama: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.

If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?

If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.

So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.

And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. [Emphasis mine]
Senator McCain should have replied along these lines.
McCain: Senator Obama some will say we did intervene when we found out about the Holocaust. It was called World War II. And I am glad to hear you state that when genocide is happening we should not stand idly by, because I believe Saddam Hussein's genocide of the Kurds means we were right to go into Iraq. We may disagree on the reason for the Iraq War, but it is encouraging that you agree that we should have intervened.
There were other opportunities. The next 27 days will tell.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Obama's Closet Skeletons

We know that Senator Obama made Jim Johnson chairman of his VP Selection Committee. And we also know that Mr. Johnson was CEO of Bailed-out Fannie Mae.

We know that for 20 years Senator Obama attended a church headed by Race-Bating, Black Separatist, Jeremiah Wright. Also known is that Reverend Wright married the Obamas, baptized their daughters, was originally part of the Obama Campaign and was the senator's spiritual advisor. We know that Barack Obama condemed Rev. Wright's views, but only after saying that in 20 years of attending church, he had never before heard any of his Pastor's inflamatory language.

But do we really know Barack Obama? Apparently not. And confirming the fact that we do not know the real Barack Obama, are two recent articles. (Penny Pritzker: Another Friend of Barry We Should Be Concerned About and Who Are You? 'Cause I Really Wanna Know)

In Penny Pritzker: Another Friend of Barry We Should Be Concerned About the author uses a rifle shot approach to one of Barack Obamas friends. Currently John McCain and Sarah Palin are exposing the connection between Obama and a Domestic Terrorist as more than "... just some guy I knew from the neighborhood ..."

In response, the Obama Campaign is highlighting the Keating 5 S&L scandal and John McCain's connection. Meanwhile Former Democrat Senator John Glenn, who was also implicated in the Keating 5 scandal is actively campaigning for Barack Obama. Both Senators Glenn and McCain were cleared of involvement in this scandal.
But this is bigger than just John Glenn. Obama claims McCain can't be trusted because the Keating 5 had something to do with the S&L crisis of the eighties. What about the subprime mortgage crisis of today?
This is a more relevant issue, especially because Americans are hurting today because of the Financial Crisis and $700 Billion Bail-Out. And part of the concern, is because we don't yet know how many more Taxpayer Dollars will be required, let alone the question of have we reached bottom yet? The Economy is the current Number 1 issue for Voters. So a look at Senator Obama's history with Financial Failure is relevant.
The Pritzker Family co-owned the Superior Bank FSB, which collapsed in 2001, resulting in a $460 million payment to federal regulators. Penny served as head of the Board from 1991-1994 and is a director of the bank's holding company, Coast to Coast Financial Corp. [Emphasis mine]
Penny Pritzker is Obama's National Finance Chair.

The reasons cited for the Superior Bank, FSB's failure, Bad lending practices and improper bookkeeping .

Jay Tea at Wizbang takes a shotgun approach in his article Who Are You? 'Cause I Really Wanna Know.
As remarkable as Obama's official biography is, it's the items that are omitted that are really enlightening. One of the biggest weaknesses people cite in Obama is his lack of executive experience, but that's not entirely accurate.
Jay maintains that Barack Obama does have executive experience, but it has not been sucessful and/or was for very unpopular causes.
Barack Obama served on the boards of two very large organizations. He spent seven years with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (the first four in charge) and eight years as a director of the Joyce Foundation. But he doesn't want to talk about those 15 years of executive experience.
As Mr. Tea notes, the Obama Campaign will not talk about this executive experience, nor will Barack Obama himself. Why?
Obama served as a director for the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002. During that time, the Foundation put a LOT of resources into redefining the 2nd Amendment as not a collective right, and trying to ban handguns entirely. [Emphasis mine]
Well it is obvious why Mr. Obama might not want this executive experience publized.
So, what does this have to do with Obama? I dunno. Obama doesn't talk about it. But the circumstantial evidence is compelling. Obama has a long record of pushing for gun control. He sponsored some of the most restrictive gun-control laws in Illinois. He once filled out a questionnaire saying he supported an outright ban on handguns. Or maybe he didn't -- a "misinformed" aide filled out the form. Or, at least, that question, as Obama filled out other parts of it. Or something.
Surely something good can come out the executive experience at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. After all he was the Chairman of this organization for the first 4 years.
And then there's the Chicago Annenberg Foundation. This program was set up to improve Chicago's public schools. Bill Ayers, unrepentant former terrorist ("guilty as hell, free as a bird," in his own words), worked for years to start this program. And who was the founding head of the Challenge? Barack Obama. [Emphasis mine]
Oops. Somehow the words "unrepentant former terrorist" don't sound like the proper terms to be associated with a Presidential Candidate.
Obama, who describes Ayers as "some guy in my neighborhood" who he met at a few meetings. Obama, a lawyer and former failed community organizer (he cited his ineffectiveness as an organizer as part of his reason for going to law school), with no real track record of doing much of anything, was put in charge of a foundation that started off with a bankroll of $50 million and ultimately spent over three times that much.
Obama's qualifications up to this point don't sound like the qualifications of someone you put in charge of that much money. A point echoed by Mr. Tea.
There are many unfavorable things one can call Bill Ayers. Despicable. Communist. (Sorry, "small-c communist" is the term he prefers.) Radical. Terrorist. Anti-American.

But I don't think you can fairly call him "overly trusting" or "naive" or "gullible." And those are the qualities one would ascribe to someone who puts a complete stranger (or even a very casual acquaintance) in charge of a project Ayers put that much effort into creating.
It is fair to judge that there must have been a much closer relationship between Obama and Ayers. Why do Obama and his Campaign refuse to elaborate on the real nature of this relationship?

And what positive results for these activities can Senator Obama add to his resume?
Obama ran the board for four years, then stepped down to a board member for three years longer, until the Foundation shut down in 2002. In the end, they spent over $150 million on improving Chicago's schools.

And the result? A study showed virtually no difference between the schools the Challenge "helped" and those they did not. In short, Obama spent seven years and $150 million and achieved exactly nothing.

Except, of course, lining the pockets of his and Ayers' friends. With money from charities and the people of Chicago.
As a former Executive Recruiter (Headhunter to most of you) I can see why the Obama resume does not highlight his 15 years of Executive Experience. Now why exactly should we reward this man with the Presidency of the United States?

Biden's Making It UP

Biden's Fantasy World is a good indication of who knows the facts and who's being less than truthful.
We think the word "lie" is overused in politics today, having become a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we won't say Mr. Biden was deliberately making events up when he made these and other false statements. Perhaps he merely misspoke. In any case, Mrs. Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at least most of what she knows is true.
May be Senator Biden was really intimidated by Governor Sarah "Pit Bull" Palin. Intimidated to the point that he had to exaggerate and misstate facts to compete with Governor Palin. Or may be he really doesn't know his facts as well as he should considering his 36 years of Senate experience.
In the popular media wisdom, Sarah Palin is the neophyte who knows nothing about foreign policy while Joe Biden is the savvy diplomatic pro. Then what are we to make of Mr. Biden's fantastic debate voyage last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin mocked from New York to Los Angeles?
Let's get to specifics. Where were the mistakes, exaggerations and just plane "I'm makin' it up, to keep up" quotes? Does Foreign Affairs Senator Biden know who the players are in the Middle East? His misstatements concerning Lebanon, France, NATO, the US and Hezbollah would indicate Joe don't know s**t!
Start with Lebanon, where Mr. Biden asserted that "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.' Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel." [Emphasis mine]
What good is experience if the experience leads to these glaring errors? May be Senator Biden should have been paying more attention.
The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria, except that the U.S. also didn't do that. The Lebanese ousted Syria's military in 2005. As for NATO, Messrs. Biden and Obama may have proposed sending alliance troops in, but if they did that was also a fantasy. The U.S. has had all it can handle trying to convince NATO countries to deploy to Afghanistan. [Emphasis mine]
Now I ask you to judge. Which misstatement is worse? The statements of Senator Biden or Governor Palin mispronouncing the name of the General in Afghanistan. Governor Palin reference General McClellan rather than General McKienan.
Speaking of which, Mr. Biden also averred that "Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan." In trying to correct him, Mrs. Palin mispronounced the general's name -- saying "General McClellan" instead of General David McKiernan. But Mr. Biden's claim was the bigger error, because General McKiernan said that while "Afghanistan is not Iraq," he also said a "sustained commitment" to counterinsurgency would be required. That is consistent with Mr. McCain's point that the "surge principles" of Iraq could work in Afghanistan.
Senator Biden also contradicted himself when he made this amazing claim. Ask yourself as you read the following when were you misstating the facts Senator? Now, or during the Primary?
Then there's the Senator's astonishing claim that Mr. Obama "did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad" without preconditions. Yet Mr. Biden himself criticized Mr. Obama on this point in 2007 at the National Press Club: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected President? Absolutely, positively no." [Emphasis mine]
Both Senators Obama and Biden are attorneys. Were either of them presented with a courtroom witness who made contradictory statements, both of them would question the credibility of the witness (Senator Biden in this case) by asking "Were you lying now or then?" It is fair for us to ask the same question, Senator Biden.
Or how about his rewriting of Bosnia history to assert that John McCain didn't support President Clinton in the 1990s. "My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked." Mr. Biden's immodesty aside, Mr. McCain supported Mr. Clinton on Bosnia, as did Bob Dole even as he was running against him for President in 1996 -- in contrast to the way Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders have tried to undermine President Bush on Iraq.
Senator Biden apparently has a very narrow focus or he's makes this up as he goes. A bill may go through many incarnations during the legislative process. It is entirely possible at one point in the process, the bill contained language unacceptable to Senator McCain. This is very thin ice on which to claim that Senator McCain initially opposed the bill. The final result should be the judgment vote, and on that vote Senator McCain supported President Clinton.
Closer to home, the Delaware blarney stone also invited Americans to join him at "Katie's restaurant" in Wilmington to witness middle-class struggles. Just one problem: Katie's closed in the 1980s. The mistake is more than a memory lapse because it exposes how phony is Mr. Biden's attempt to pose for this campaign as Lunchbucket Joe.
Shouldn't a Resident and a Senator who Represents the area know that a Wilmington Restaurant (Katie's) closed about 20 years ago? The impression Senator Biden was trying to portray gives us the impression he frequents Katie's Restaurant to get the "feel of the common man". Clearly, Senator Biden is not that connected to the people.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

NYT & AP Get Obama Ayres Connection Wrong

Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin has attacked the judgment of Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama because of his connection to a Domestic Terrorist, William Ayers. Mr. Ayers is one of the founding members of the Weathermen. The Weathermen were anti-Vietnam War militants who conducted violent attacks on the Pentagon and United States Capitol. Mr. Ayers is unrepentant about being a Domestic Terrorist, and in fact claims that the Weathermen did not do enough.

Both the New York Times [Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths] and the AP [Analysis: Palin's words carry racial tinge] have recently whitewashed and brushed aside the significance of this connection. But in fact, the connection is very important. It is important because it shows the lack of judgment on the part of Senator Obama. And because Senator Obama has not been completely truthful about his relationship with an unrepentant Domestic Terrorist, William Ayers.

NYT's Ayers-Obama Whitewash by Stanley Kurtz reveals the importance and the extent of the Obama-Ayers connection.
As others have noted, today’s New York Times carries a story on the relationship between Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers. The piece serves as a platform for the Obama campaign and Obama’s friends and allies. Obama’s spokesman and supporters’ names are named and their versions of events are presented in detail, with quotes. Yet the article makes no serious attempt to present the views of Obama critics who have worked to uncover the true nature of the relationship. That makes this piece irresponsible journalism, and an obvious effort by the former paper of record to protect Obama from the coming McCain onslaught. [Emphasis mine]
How close a relationship Obama has with Ayers is presented as the result of the work of Mr. Kurtz.
The title of the article when it first appeared on the web last night was, "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close." That was quickly changed to, "Obama and the ‘60's Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths." Perhaps the first headline made the paper’s agenda a bit too obvious. Even so, the new title simply parrots the line of Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt that the two first met through an early "education project" and since have simply "encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood." Or, as New York Times reporter Scott Shane puts it at the head of his article, since an initial lunchtime meeting in 1995, "their paths have crossed sporadically...at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project (i.e. the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors."
So when Senator Obama claims in reference to his relationship with Ayers ... he's just some guy from the neighborhood is Senator Obama being Truthful? No, he is not. Senator Obama is really misleading all of us. Senator Obama and his campaign have the Mainstream Media like the New York Times and the AP to thank for attempting legitimize and mislead the public - US. Here is what Mr. Kurtz has to say about the Senator's and Ayers friendship.
There is nothing "sporadic" about Barack Obama delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of many years to fund Bill Ayers’ radical education projects, not to mention many millions more to benefit Ayers’ radical education allies. We are talking about a substantial and lengthy working relationship here, one that does not depend on the quality of personal friendship or number of hours spent in the same room together (although the article greatly underestimates that as well).
The Obama-Ayers connection, and others of questionable merit, definitely reflect on Senator Obama's Judgment and fitness for the Presidency of the United States.
Shane’s article buys the spin on Ayers’ supposed rehabilitation offered by the Obama campaign and Ayers’ supporters in Chicago. In this view, whatever Ayers did in the 1960's has somehow been redeemed by Ayers’ later turn to education work. As the Times quotes Mayor Daley saying, "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life." The trouble with this is that Ayers doesn’t view his terrorism as a mistake. How can he be forgiven when he’s not repentant? Nor does Ayers see his education work as a repudiation of his early radicalism. On the contrary, Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise. The point of Ayers’ education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers’ "small schools" project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it. [Emphasis mine]
Nor can it be said that Senator Obama did not know about Mr. Ayers radical views.
Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers’ radical views, since he read and publically endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book on juvenile crime. That book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africa’s apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country. [Emphasis mine]
The fact that there is little evidence that Senator Obama shares these radical views, does not change the reason for questioning Senator Obama's judgment. Since Senator Obama has a tolerance for radical views of the United States and juvenile crime, we have the right to question Senator Obama's judgment and temperament to hold the office of the United States President.

Democrat Blabbermouths Reid & Schumer IRRESPONSIBLE

Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are doing their part to insure the Economic Crisis is worse than it has to be. While the Mortgage Crisis is in need of responsible political actions, Both Schumer and Reid have been guilty of irresponsible talk. Both need to be sure their brains are in gear before they open their mouths.

The Trouble With Harry highlights the latest irresponsible actions of the Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.
"One of the individuals in the caucus today talked about a major insurance company. A major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows that's on the verge of going bankrupt. That's what this is all about." The next day, share prices fell sharply across the insurance industry. [Emphasis mine]
In this time of Financial Jitters, it should be obvious to a National Leader that such talk is going to cause further fears. Hopefully Reid is just naive. But whatever his motivation for making these statements, he is acting Irresponsibly.
The steep drop in the share prices of insurance companies Thursday destroyed wealth for uncounted middle-class investors holding onto stock in companies still considered healthy. [Emphasis mine]
Democrats are the party that claims to be for the Middle-Class, but Democrat Harry Reid's comments hurt the Middle-Class in the pocket book. Pension Plans, 401(k)'s and most who have Mutual Fund shares lost value when the market dropped due to the comment.


In the same way Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made a similar irresponsible misstep in July. The $4 Billion Senator emphasizes the boneheaded talk of another Democrat.
The federal takeover of IndyMac Bank over the weekend could cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. between $4 billion and $8 billion. But Senator Chuck Schumer, who helped to precipitate the collapse by publicizing a letter to the bank's regulator last month, has no remorse. [Emphasis mine]
Schumer claimed he was ... just doing his job by publicizing a letter about IndyMac Bank he had written to regulators in which Schumer wrote that IndyMac Bank ... could face a collapse.
The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), whose job it actually was to regulate IndyMac, took a different view. "The immediate cause of the closing," the OTS wrote in a press release, "was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York." The OTS added: "In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts." [Emphasis mine]

This is the same Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who joined Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) [Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee], Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) [Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee] and other Democrats in both houses of Congress to block all attempts by Republicans to impose tighter controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. See more on this here, here, here, and here.

In fact President Bush, John McCain, Alan Greenspan and other Republicans have been sounding warnings about this Current Credit Crisis since 1999. It has been the Democrats lead by Schumer, Dodd and Frank who have said there is no crisis. The Democrats Schumer, Dodd Frank and Maxine Waters (D-CA) are all on record as dening the shaky nature of Both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while taking large donations from both Freddie and Fannie.

By the way, Barack Obama in 4 years has the 2nd largest amount of donations from Freddie and Fannie. Democrat Dodd has received the largest contributions, but his dollars from Fannie and Freddie come over a period of 20 years.

Barney Frank (D-MA) in the House, who is the current chairman of the Financial Services Committee, has what appears to be a conflict of interest in matters concerning Fannie Mac. While Representative Frank served on this House Committee, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, his lover was an Executive at Fannie Mae.

Fannie Mae has a history of Democrats bad judgment. Franklin Raines was CEO of Fannie Mae during an accounting scandal. He was forced to resign. This is the Same Franklin Raines whom Maxine Waters (D-CA) praised for his leadership of Fannie Mae, and who was President Clinton's Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. His Golden Parachute was about $90 Million.

Jim Johnson is the present CEO of Fannie Mae and was the Chairman of Barack Obama's Vice Presidential selection committee.


Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Barney Frank Points Fingers In The Wrong Direction

According to this story, House ignores Bush, rejects $700B bailout bill, Barney Frank (D-MA), Chairman of The House Financial Services Committee, claimed on Monday that the Republicans were at fault for not passing the bailout bill. The Bill failed by 12 Votes and Representative Frank was upset with Republicans who blamed comments by Speaker of the House, Nancy Peloci (D-CA) for the failure.
Republicans blamed Pelosi's scathing speech near the close of the debate - which attacked Bush's economic policies and a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" of financial markets - for the vote's failure.
Someone smarter than I am once said, '... be careful where you point you finger of blame, because you have 3 fingers pointing right back to you.' Considering that 97 Democrats voted against the bill, maybe Representative Frank should have taken that advice! In fact 13 Democrat members of Representative Frank's own Committee, which you will remember he Chairs, voted NAY. Look at this list:
  1. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-PA
  2. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA
  3. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-MO
  4. Rep. Joe Baca, D-CA
  5. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, D-MA
  6. Rep. David Scott, D-GA
  7. Rep. Al Green, D-TX
  8. Rep. Melissa L. Bean, D-IL
  9. Rep. Paul W. Hodes, D-NH
  10. Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, D-CT
  11. Rep. Andre Carson, D-IN
  12. Rep. Don Cazayoux, D-LA
  13. Rep. Travis Childers, D-MS
Did you notice the "D" after each name? They are all Democrats, and they are all Democrats who serve on the House Financial Services Committee, of which Barney Franks (D-MA) is the Chairman.

Mr. Franks, you have more than enough votes to pass this bill, if you just got 12 of the 13 Democrats on your own committee to vote "YEA". In fact, Mr. Franks and Ms. Pelosi, the House has enough Democrats to pass this bill without even one Republican Vote of "AYE". Since many of the 97 Democrats who voted against this bill owe their positions to Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Franks, what does this say about Democratic Leadership?

By the way, Jessie Jackson (D-IL) is another "NAY" vote. Representative Jackson is a member of the same Chicago Political Machine which produced Senator Barack Obama. Representative Jackson is one of Obama's chief advisers.

Suggestion to Chairman Barney Frank. Be sure you think before you point fingers.

Monday, September 29, 2008

House Fails on Passage of Credit Bailout

As I write this entry the 1st vote in the House of Representatives on the Economic Recovery Act of 2008 has failed to pass 205-228 (217 needed). Whether this is a good thing or not, I'm still not sure. The experts opinions are divided, and the public is firmly against the passage.

While I still don't know what the solution is, I do know what the original sin was that caused the current mess. Democrats. In particular the Jimmy Carter Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This act was greatly expanded by Bill Clinton in 1994. And it was the Democrats in general and Barney Frank (D-MA) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) who killed several pieces of legislation which might have prevented today's mess.

President Bush, Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Fed Alan Greenspan all warned of this crisis in 2003, 2005 and 2006. Other warnings go back to 1999. These warnings were ignored by the Democrats. Not only where they ignored, the public statements of Frank, Dodd and other Democrats assured us nothing was wrong with the system. There was no impending Financial Crisis.

Confirming these observations is this article The Financial Mess: How We Got Here.
The Community Reinvestment Act was pushed hard by Bill Clinton, although it originated under Jimmy Carter. Asked about it the other day on one of the morning TV talk shows, Clinton said times back then were different. Fannie and Freddie had lots of money and he (in his infinite wisdom) decided that the money should not go to share holders or to executive compensation, but should be used to put the poor into homes.
Notice that a Politician (Clinton) decided that the Government is in a better position to know what to do with lots of money. How many times has this idea worked in the past? Remember what Ronald Reagan said were the most terrifying words anyone could ever hear - "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
As you can imagine, wonderful things happen when the government strong arms corporations as to how they should spend their money and, better yet, how they should assess the qualifications of home buyers. So the country's biggest buyers of mortgages were pressured into lowering the qualifications of applicants, in order to increase the percentage of poor that got mortgages. By 2006, 30% of all mortgages went to people who in any other circumstances wouldn't qualify.
Ask anyone who is familiar with the Banking Industry, what a low CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) score did to their business. The Clinton administration aggressively pursued Financial Institutions who did not make enough or the "right kind" of mortgage loans, to the point the Financial Institutions went begging for the 30% of buyers, who under good Financial Practices of Prudent Accounting Guidelines, did not qualify for mortgages.
Now the political left would like you to know that the CRA-controlled institutions did not lend the largest percentage of sub-prime mortgages. But that's information by deception, because the mortgage business is a competitive business. If the government strong arms one part of the business, the other part will respond. And strong arm was what the Clinton administration did, even using the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to pressure banks to lend more money to the disadvantaged. Caught in the act, a spokesman for the office noted that its abuse of power was "for the best of intentions:" the same inclination used to pave the road to hell.
While the Real Estate Market was growing and values increasing, the subprime, CRA mandated mortgages worked.
In the short run, all sorts of money was to be made by lowering standards and processing sub-prime loans for the poor. The Wall Street Journal raised concerns about Fannie's and Freddie's capital requirements. Senator Phil Gramm (R, TX) raised issues about community pressure groups, such as Barack Obama's ACORN, extorting money from banks by holding their feet to the CRA fire, and threatening to militate against mergers and acquisitions unless the banks entered into preferential agreements with community groups. [emphasis mine]
Community Groups like the Local ACORN organization in Chicago for whom Senator Obama was their Legal Council and who have a decades long history of voter registration FRAUD and CORRUPTION. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act forced ACORN to reveal its relationship with banks and mortgage institutions.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made other uses of "lots of money", besides backing subprime loans.
Fannie and Freddie became big contributors to the Democratic Party. The sub-prime business paid off-at least while the bubble was growing. And the Kerry, Hillary and Obama campaigns have numbered among the leading recipients of the largess of the two mortgage lenders. [emphasis mine]
And they also made huge "Golden Parachute" payments to CEO's. Fannie Mae made payments to disgraced CEO Franklin Raines.
Franklin Raines, the Fannie Mae C.E.O. from 1999 to 2004, had been budget director in the Clinton administration. The left would not like you to be reminded that Raines has been a consultant to the Obama campaign, according to the Washington Post, and that Freddie and Fannie number among the top 5 contributors to Obama's run for the presidency. Raines is being sued for the recovery of 50 million in compensation acquired by the alleged manipulation of Fannie's books. Now, that's not change we can believe in. That's Washington as we have come to know and "love" it.
And now we hear that the Democrats, Particularly Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Obama are outraged at "Golden Parachute" payments. It's time for a Reality Check. The same Democrats who let it happen, no actually insured the Credit Crisis would happen, who now complain the loudest. Where were Nancy, Harry, Barack, Barney and Chris when the Republicans were sounding the alarms?
The Bush administration in 2003 tried to change the system, to no avail. Congressman Barney Frank, (D, MA ) was in the forefront of stopping the Bush proposal to take control out of Fannie and Freddie and put it into a third overseeing organization. Frank too has emerged in the current crisis as one of the major critics of the administration.
And ...
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan continued to raise the alarm over Fannie's and Freddie's weak capitalization. His concerns were ignored.
And ...
Former Congressman Michael Oxley (R,OH), then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and co-author of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, introduced a bill in 2005 in response to the growing problem, but Fannie and Freddie put their lobbyists to work and the bill died.
Senator Dodd (D-CT) continues to try to place the blame on President Bush. It happened on Bush's Watch. Well, who was on watch when the warnings were made by the Republicans?
After all, the Bush administration in 2003 and Senator Phil Gramm even earlier, in 1999, had been working to change the system. Dodd, like Obama, has been a big recipient of campaign funds from Fannie and Freddie, organizations that Dodd oversees. Dodd has apparently been more consumed with campaign contributions from the mortgage giants than the responsibilities of oversight.
Placing blame on the CRA requirements was not the sole cause of the present Credit Crisis, but it is the original and underlying cause. When you next hear that it's the Republicans who caused this crisis, remember the facts and that the Democrats passed CRA and Stopped attempts to correct the problem.

Congress Makes $25 Billion Auto Industry Loan

In case you missed it, in addition to the Wall Street/Mortgage/Credit guarantees, Congress has also made the US Auto Makers a $25 Billion Loan Guarantee. But after all it's only money - Your Money. More of our Tax Dollars spent. US Congress passes 25 bln loan guarantees to automakers has the details of this expendutare.
The loan guarantees were included in a continuing resolution that included funding for the US government and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These Loan Guarantees includes Foreign Auto Makers with Manufacturing Plants in the US.
Under provisions of the new legislation, not only US carmakers are eligible for the guarantees but also suppliers and foreign automakers with plants in the United States that are more than 20 years old -- Nissan and Honda's US operations qualify.
Our National Debt is Over $9Trillion. It is time to Rein in our Spending and fill-in the Debt Hole!!

Can we really aford to elect a President who wants to expand the National Debt? In case you aren't aware of it - Senator Obama wants to increase Taxes and Spend, Spend Spend. His programs will require spending many times what his Tax Increases Realize If you though President Bush was a spender, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!!

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Alternative Credit Crisis Answers

What do Congress and the President need to do to address the Credit Crisis? The answer appears to be extremely complex. However, we do not need to rush to do something in a panic state. On the other hand, we do need to take action quickly. This problem will not solve itself.

At present the Democrats control enough votes in both the House and Senate to pass whatever they want. Why haven't they? Because they need Republican Cover, which they can only get by calling this a bipartisan bill. The Democrats, lead by Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate, must be able to defend their bad judgment which lead to this Credit Crisis by saying "the Republicans agreed to this problem's solution."

It is for this reason that the House Republicans, and John McCain, are insisting on some changes in the original measure. However, there is only so much these Republicans can do. Since the Republicans are the Minority, their power is limited.

The problem is one of CONGRESSIONAL OVER REGULATION . Congress created the problem, Congress can solve it, but NOT with MORE REGULATIONS. The Bowyer Bailout Alternative, by Jerry Bowyer agrees.
Over-regulation brought us to this crisis, not under-regulation. If we get the diagnosis wrong, then the prescription will be wrong too.
Mr. Bowyer presents us with a somewhat convoluted analogy to describe our problem.
Think of the analogy of a 'bail out': someone knocks a hole in a boat and the water rushes in. The crew bails water out of the boat to keep it from sinking. [...] This analogy points to the real problem: the hole! If you patch the hole early, no bailing is needed. If you patch it very late, the whole ship needs to go into dry dock. But the bailing out only makes sense in the context of patching the original problem. The worst thing to do would be to allow the ship to sink to make some kind of populist political point. No, revise that:

The worst thing to do would be to take the left's view and say "too much water in the boat, let's knock more holes into it so the water can get out." [emphasis mine]
Mr. Bowyer's quote is a little awkward, but you get the point. The quicker the original problem (the hole) is fixed the faster the ship becomes seaworthy again. But sometimes in politics the fix to a complex problem, especially one not well understood, is to regulate a solution. And that's because politicians are legislators who believe legislation and regulation will solve any problem.

Barney Frank (D-MA) in the House, and Chris Dodd (D-CT) in the Senate chair the Financial Services Committee and the Banking Committee, respectively, in Congress. They have said there is no hole in the boat, but if there ever should be a hole, we require more holes be made NOW, so the water can drain out. The Democrats answer: "Regulate more holes to ensure safety." And what was a sound boat, now has holes in its hull. They're currently above the water-line, but when the storm comes, the ship will sink.
Place salary ceilings on "every company that benefits in any way whatsoever from the bailout" as Barney Frank said today on CNBC, and you'll get a talent exodus. Give judges the power to obviate existing mortgage contracts with investors around the world - the dollar will plunge. Every one of those proposals is another hole in the boat.
More regulation (holes) from Barney Frank (D-MA). Representative Frank is unwilling to admit we need to patch the current holes. Holes like this ...
Some are talking about putting a hold on the mark to market regulations. That's a start but not enough. Don't suspend mark to market, abolish it. It's part of the whole Sarbox, Spitzer, FAS 157 wave of punitive regulation after Enron. It makes no sense to impose and universalize temporary downturns, especially during panics.
And this ...
Abolish the Bank Holding Company Act. It's a remnant of the 1920s before branch banking. Its only current effect is to keep private equity from buying majority stakes in troubled banks. Goldman's decision yesterday just illustrates the problem. They had to change structure in order to buy up other banks. This is nuts. Get rid of this dinosaur and private equity will start the capital infusions.
And this, GIGANTIC HOLE ...
Abolish the Community Reinvestment Act. Forcing banks to make minority loans is the original sin out of which came the Subprime mortgage industry. Let banks decide where to loan; that's their job. Leave identity politics out of our credit system. [emphasis mine]
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) came into being under President Carter (1977) and was Greatly Expanded by President Clinton (1994) to mandate subprime loans. Its provisions work as long as the Housing Market keeps expanding. But when they started to fail last year, the bubble burst with a bang. The provisions of the CRA, are not sound Financial, Fiduciary and Accounting principles. Over Regulation resulting in a lack of prudent policy to gain political advantage with the voters.