Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!

Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Taliban Leader Vows Attack on DC!

From WSJ:
"The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, a man with a $5 million U.S. bounty on his head, threatened Tuesday to carry out a terror attack on the U.S. capital, and said his forces were behind the assault on a police academy in eastern Pakistan.

Baitullah Mehsud said fighters loyal to him raided the police academy on the outskirts of Lahore on Monday to avenge U.S. missile strikes against Islamic militants based along the border with Afghanistan, a region largely controlled by the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Monday's attack on the police academy, which left 12 people dead, "was in retaliation for the ongoing drone attacks in the tribal areas. There will be more such attacks," he said by telephone from an undisclosed location presumably in the South Waziristan tribal region, his base.

Interactive Map

Mr. Mehsud's claim of credit added to the fears that militant violence which has engulfed much of northwestern Pakistan is now spreading to the nuclear-armed country's eastern heartland, Punjab. The province had until recently been spared much of the violence, although some of Pakistan's most potent Islamic militant groups originated in the region and still draw recruits from its poor, rural villages.

Mr. Mehsud, the 35-year-old supreme commander of the Tehrik-e-Taliban, known as the Pakistan Taliban, also signaled that he may be seeking to widen the scope of his fight beyond Pakistan.

"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," he said in separate remarks to the Associated Press.

Experts say it's unlikely that Mr. Mehsud has the reach to attack the U.S. His forces are mostly concentrated on fighting Pakistan's government. But Pakistani and Western intelligence officials believe Mr. Mehsud has close ties to al Qaeda, which U.S. officials have repeatedly said could be planning its next major terror strike from bases in same tribal areas where Mr. Mehsud is based.

To counter that threat, the U.S. has since August launched dozens of missiles strikes from unmanned Predator drone aircraft. Mr. Mehsud is believed to have been the target of some recent strikes. Pakistani officials have said they are pressing the U.S. to make him one of the main targets of the campaign, which has killed at least nine top al Qaeda militants..."

More Here

A Rookie President?

Man, I really like the way this guy writes and THINKS!
Maybe we should ge HIM to run for President?

A Rookie President
by Thomas Sowell

Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.

We now have a rookie President of the United States and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other Presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been President before. He has never had any position of major executive responsibility in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.

Other first-term Presidents have been governors, generals, cabinet members or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and had not spent half their few years in the senate running for President.

What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every President has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil and certainly speak no evil.

They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder-- and they would make excuses for that. Even former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama and even crusty Bill O'Reilly has been impressed by Obama's demeanor.

There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes-- and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.

What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.

Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives-- and theirs-- in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?

In the name of "change," Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them-- certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by "social studies" or other politically correct courses.

Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? France did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

This year, President Obama's attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians-- a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.

Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime-- which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.

However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as President of the United States was to Hamas, to whom he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama's visibly less impressive reception of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous Presidents over the past two generations have received British Prime Ministers.

President Obama's sending the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

We can lose some very big games with this rookie.


Saturday, March 28, 2009

Thursday, March 26, 2009

I'm Having A Very Good Crisis!

Remember George Soros?


That's him sitting next to the stairs...

Mail onLine
A hedge fund manager who predicted the global credit crunch has said the financial crisis has been 'stimulating' and the culmination of his life's work.
(Predicted it my foot! He orchestrated it!)

George Soros, who predicted the global financial crisis twice before, was one of the few people to anticipate and prepare for the current economic collapse. Mr Soros said his prediction meant he was better able to brace his Quantum investment fund against the gloabal storm.

But other investors failed to take notice of his prediction, and his decision to come out of retirement in 2007 to manage the fund, made him $US2.9 billion.

And while the financial crisis continued to deepen across the globe, the 78-year-old still managed to make $1.1 billion last year.

'It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life’s work,' he told national newspaper The Australian.

Soros is one of 25, top hedge fund managers from across Wall Street who have defied the credit crunch crisis to reap a total of $11.6billion (£7.9bn) last year.
The managers made their profit by trading above the pain in the markets, according to Institutional Investor’s Alpha Magazine.

Former maths professor James H. Simons, who has made billions in hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, earned $2.5 billion running computer-driven trading strategies.
And John A. Paulson, who made his fortune by betting against the housing market, came in second earning $2 billion.

The managers made the profit in a year when losses were recorded at two of every three hedge funds and when hedge funds lost an average of 18 percent, according to the New York Times.
Two of the three managers who tied for ninth place, at $250 million, are based in Britain and include David Harding of Winton Capital and Alan Howard of Brevan Howard Asset Management.
Another Brevan Howard employee Christopher Rokos also made the list.

The profit comes at a time when the U.S Government is scrutinising Wall Street pay and when hedge funds are facing proposals for new taxes on their gains.
Despite the global financial crisis, the combined pay of the top 25 hedge fund managers still managed to top every year before 2006.

Mr. Paulson said his pay was high, partly because he is the largest investor in his fund and that he did not receive a bonus.

He said the the pensions, endowments and other institutions which invest in his fund do not object to the profits he and his team make.

'In a year when all their other investments lost money, we’re like an oasis,' he said in the Times.

'We have investors who were invested with Madoff, and they can’t thank me enough.'

Alpha Magazine's 2008 Top Moneymakers
1 - James Simons, Renaissance Technologies Corp, $2.5 billion
2 - John Paulson, Paulson & Co, $2 billion
3 - John Arnold, Centaurus Energy, $1.5 billion
4 - George Soros, Soros Fund Management, $1.1 billion
5 - Raymond Dalio, Bridgewater Associates, $780 million
6 - Bruce Kovner, Caxton Associates, $640 million
7 - David Shaw, D.E. Shaw & Co, $275 million
8 - Stanley Druckenmiller, Duquesne Capital Management, $260 million
9 - (tie) David Harding, Winton Capital Management, $250 million
9 - (tie) Alan Howard, Brevan Howard Asset Management, $250 million
9 - (tie) John Taylor Jr, FX Concepts, $250 million

Profiles for hedge fund managers ranked 12 through 25 will be available tomorrow:
12 - James Chanos, Kynikos Associates
13 - Michael Platt, BlueCrest Capital Management
14 - Roy Niederhoffer, R.G. Niederhoffer Capital Management
15 - John Horseman, Horseman Capital Management
16 - Paul Touradji, Touradji Capital Management
17 - Henry Laufer, Renaissance Technologies Corp.
18 - Kenneth Tropin, Graham Capital Management
19 - (tie) Pierre Andurand, Dennis Crema, BlueGold Capital Management
19 - (tie) Christopher Rokos, Brevan Howard Asset Management
22 - (tie) Christian Baha, Superfund
22 - (tie) Christian Levett, Clive Capital
24 - William Dunn, Dunn Capital Management
25 - Andrew Hoine, Paulson & Co.

I'm SO upset that I didn't make the list!

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Dear A.I.G., I Quit!

I thought this was an interesting inside look at what was going on over at AIG. Enjoy!

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

DEAR Mr. Liddy,
It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials.

In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so.

Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid.

Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend.
I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities.

Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money.

I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses.

And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us.

I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand.

That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”
That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise.

It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised.

None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes, but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear.
Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do?
There’s no easy answer.
I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn.

This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps.

I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Jake DeSantis

Nice goin' Jake!
I'm behind you 100%!
But, you should sue them all!

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

When Is America Going To Say, ENOUGH!

My gosh!

Never before in my lifetime have I witnessed such an intrusion into the private sector, such an arrogance of Presidential attitude, such a distortion of American Ideals!

I wonder when Americans will grow a pair and stand up to these thieves?

Obama and his Marxist minions are taking over our great country under the guise of 'helping the economy'!

First they bailout every bank they can find because they goofed up over 10 years ago when they repealed The Glasss-Steagall Act and allowed every mother's son to buy a home, regardless of income or ability to pay.

Now Obama and his Marxists want even more authority to take over companies!

Remember, those banks that made those 'toxic' loans and then sold them to foreign banks at discounts?
Remember that?
Who insured those loans?
AIG, that's who!

So now, insurance companies like AIG need to bail out those foreign banks, so our government needs to bailout AIG!

Then they begin blaming AIG for the problem and use the ruse of blaming the executives and their bonuses as being the real problem.
They hire ACORN and 40 union thugs to parade in front of an AIG executives home and threaten to expose the names and addresses of ALL who received a bonus!
Obama thuggery at work!

Now Obama and Gietner want unprecedented power to take over ANY company that is not showing a profit!

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.
Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.


This is just the beginning my friends!
If they get this kind of power, they will begin to sink their claws into every sector of our lives!
The Government will be everywhere!

Obama will have taken over the entire country and turned the United States of America into the United Socialist States of America, in less than in a single year!

Political Malfeasance and the Financial Meltdown
by George Will
WASHINGTON -- With the braying of 328 yahoos -- members of the House of Representatives who voted for retroactive and punitive use of the tax code to confiscate legal earnings of a small unpopular group -- still reverberating, the Obama administration Monday invited private-sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anti-constitutional government.

This latest plan to unfreeze the financial system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the Troubled Asset Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without purchasing any toxic assets.

TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two automobile companies (and, last week, some of their parts suppliers), which must amaze Sweden. That unlikely tutor of America regarding capitalist common sense has said, through a Cabinet minister, that the ailing Saab automobile company is on its own: "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories."

Another embarrassing auditor of American misgovernment is China, whose premier has rightly noted the unsustainable trajectory of America's high-consumption, low-savings economy. He has also decorously but clearly expressed sensible fears that his country's $1 trillion-plus of dollar-denominated assets might be devalued by America choosing, as banana republics have done, to use inflation for partial repudiation of improvidently incurred debts.

From Mexico, America is receiving needed instruction about fundamental rights and the rule of law. A leading Democrat trying to abolish the right of workers to secret ballots in unionization elections is California's Rep. George Miller who, with 15 other Democrats, in 2001 admonished Mexico: "The secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose."

Last year, Mexico's highest court unanimously affirmed for Mexicans the right that Democrats want to strip from Americans.

Congress, with the approval of a president who has waxed censorious about his predecessor's imperious unilateralism in dealing with other nations, has shredded the North American Free Trade Agreement. Congress used the omnibus spending bill to abolish a program that was created as part of a protracted U.S. stall regarding compliance with its obligation to allow Mexican long-haul trucks on U.S roads.

The program, testing the safety of Mexican trucking, became an embarrassment because it found Mexican trucking at least as safe as U.S. trucking. Mexico has resorted to protectionism -- tariffs on many U.S. goods -- in retaliation for Democrats' protection of the Teamsters union...

Are you starting to get the picture?

It's all a huge well planed take over!

Cheap Political Theater
by Thomas Sowell
Death threats to executives at AIG, because of the bonuses they received, are one more sign of the utter degeneration of politics in our time.

Congressman Barney Frank has threatened to summon these executives before his committee and force them to reveal their home addresses-- which would of course put their wives and children at the mercy of whatever kooks might want to literally take a shot at them.

Whatever the political or economic issues involved, this is not the way such issues should be resolved in America. We are not yet a banana republic, though that is the direction in which some of our politicians are taking us-- especially those politicians who make a lot of noise about "compassion" and "social justice."

What makes this all the more painfully ironic is that it is precisely those members of Congress who have had the most to do with creating the risks that led to the current economic crisis who are making the most noise against others, and summoning people before their committee to be browbeaten and humiliated on nationwide television.

No one pushed harder than Congressman Barney Frank to force banks and other financial institutions to reduce their mortgage lending standards, in order to meet government-set goals for more home ownership. Those lower mortgage lending standards are at the heart of the increased riskiness of the mortgage market and of the collapse of Wall Street securities based on those risky mortgages.

Senator Christopher Dodd has played the same role in the Senate as Barney Frank played in the House of Representatives. Now both are summoning government employees and the officials of financial institutions before their committees to be lambasted in front of the media.

Dodd and Frank know that the best defense is a good offense. Both know how hard it would be to defend their own roles in the housing debacle, so they go on the offensive against others who are in no position to reply in kind, given the vindictive powers of Congress.

When are Americans going to get angry enough to take our country back!
Tea Parties are great, but we need to kick these bums out of office and SOON!

If we don't stand up for America, she'll become just a second rate banana republic exactly like Mr. Sowell predicted...
Wake Up America!

Stop The Spending!

Friday, March 20, 2009

Bonfire of the Trivialities

I've always liked Charles Krauthammer.
He seems to have a clear handle on common sense and a well stated understanding of what's going on in our government and political affairs.

This article caught my eye because I feel the Obama administration is nothing more than a bumbling, poorly orchestrated, clunky attempt at trying to run a Formula 1 race with a Model T Ford and a totally inexperienced pit crew!

Their handling of this current economic 'crisis' is surely amateurish and definitely embarrassing.

Mr Krauthammer uses a different analogy, but I think you'll get the idea...

Bonfire of the Trivialities
by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON ----- A $14 trillion economy hangs by a thread composed of ...(a) a comically cynical, pitchfork-wielding Congress, (b) a hopelessly understaffed, stumbling Obama administration, and (c) $165 million.

That's $165 million in bonus money handed out to AIG debt manipulators who may be the only ones who know how to defuse the bomb they themselves built. Now, in the scheme of things, $165 million is a rounding error.

It amounts to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget.

It's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone. If Bill Gates were to pay these AIG bonuses every year for the next 100 years, he'd still be left with more than half his personal fortune.

For this we are going to poison the well for any further financial rescues, face the prospect of letting AIG go under (which would make the Lehman Brothers collapse look trivial) and risk a run on the entire world financial system?

And there is such a thing as law.
The way to break a contract legally is Chapter 11. Short of that, a contract is a contract. The AIG bonuses were agreed to before the government takeover and are perfectly legal.

Is the rule now that when public anger is kindled, Congress summarily cancels contracts?

Even worse are the clever schemes now being cooked up in Congress to retrieve the money by means of some retroactive confiscatory tax.

The common law is pretty clear about the impermissibility of ex post facto legislation and bills of attainder. They also happen to be specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

We're going to overturn that for $165 million?

Nor has the president behaved much better. He too has been out there trying to lead the mob. But it's a losing game. His own congressional Democrats will out-demagogue him and heap the blame on the hapless Timothy Geithner.

Geithner has been particularly maladroit in handling this issue. But the reason he didn't give the bonuses much attention is because he's got far better things to do -- namely, work out a rescue plan for a dysfunctional credit system that is holding back any chance of recovery.

It is time for the president to state the obvious: This recession is not caused by excessive executive compensation in government-controlled companies.

The economy has been sinking because of a lack of credit, stemming from a general lack of confidence, stemming from the lack of a plan to detoxify the major lending institutions, mainly the banks, which, to paraphrase Willie Sutton, is where the money used to be.

Obama has been strangely passive about this single greatest threat to the country. In his address to Congress and his budget, he's been far more interested in his grand program for reshaping the American social contract in health care, energy and education.

Obama delegates to Geithner plans for a bailout -- and Geithner (thus far) delivers nothing.

Obama delegates to Nancy Pelosi and her congressional grandees the writing of all things fiscal -- and gets a $787 billion stimulus package that is a wish list of liberal social spending, followed by a $410 billion omnibus spending bill festooned with pork and political paybacks.

That bill, we now discover, contains, among other depth charges, a Teamster-supported provision inserted by Sen. Byron Dorgan that terminates a Bush-era demonstration project to allow some Mexican trucks onto American highways, as required under NAFTA.

If you thought the AIG hysteria was a display of populist cynicism directed at a relative triviality, consider this: There are more than 6.5 million trucks in the United States. The program Congress terminated allowed 97 Mexican trucks to roam among them. Ninety-seven! Shutting them out not only undermines NAFTA. It caused Mexico to retaliate with tariffs on 90 goods affecting $2.4 billion in U.S. trade coming out of 40 states.

The very last thing we need now is American protectionism. It is guaranteed to start a world trade war.

A deeply wounded world economy needs two things to recover: (1) vigorous U.S. government action to loosen credit by detoxifying the zombie banks and insolvent insurers, and (2) avoidance of a trade war.

Free trade is the one area where the world indisputably turns to Washington for leadership.

What does it see?
Grandstanding, parochialism, petty payoffs to truckers and a rush to mindless populism.

Over what? Over 97 Mexican trucks -- and bonus money that comes to what the Yankees are paying for CC Sabathia's left arm.

Ahh, yes. Charles never let's me down...

Thursday, March 19, 2009

One Win For Our Side

From The Shooting Wire

At about five-thirty yesterday evening, the lengthy feature that was to have gone in today's editions of both the Outdoor and Shooting Wires was rendered unnecessary.

Normally, that's not a reason for celebration.
But this was no ordinary occurrence.

After having spoken with Larry Haynie of Georgia Arms regarding the Department of Defense decision to require all once-fired military brass be shredded rather than sold for repurposing to consumers and domestic agencies, it seemed the set-piece battle over gun ownership was underway.

This morning, there is no discomfort whatsoever to report that the Department of Defense has been introduced to the idea that unilateral decisions of this magnitude don't come without consequences.

The voice of reason came from the United States Senators from Montana. More accurately, the voices of reason came from the Democratic senators from Montana.

At approximately 4:15 p.m. Eastern yesterday afternoon, Senators Tester and Baucus of Montana faxed a cosigned letter to the Department of Defense asking DOD to reverse their new policy requiring "mutilation" of fired military cartridge brass.

At approximately 5:30 p.m. Eastern our sources tell us, Senator Tester's office received a fax back from the Defense Department saying the brass destruction policy IS reversed. Already, websites that coordinate the sale of DOD surplus are beginning to remove the "Mutilation" requirement from their listings.

This only hours after they began adding the mutilation stipulation.In short, it seems a fax from the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and another Senator had considerable powers of persuasion. That translates to a win for the law-abiding gun owners of the United States.

It is only appropriate that we recognize the party affiliation of both these men, because their willingness to go to bat for the ammunition industry demonstrates that, despite all the indications to the contrary, Washington is not irrevocably divided down party lines.

When it comes to firearms and Second Amendment rights, it seems party affiliations can still be disregarded. That is reassuring.

Today, firearms owners owe these two gentlemen a vote of thanks.
They didn't wait for an opinion poll, they acted.

Still, this is still no time to relax when it comes to firearms.
DOD has seen the light, but Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department seem determined to try and convince America the problems with Mexican drug smuggling and the related violence is due to the ease with which American arms are being purchased here and smuggled into Mexico.
Fortunately, not everyone is sitting still for that argument.

Last week, Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action warned a House subcommittee not to make American gun owners "scapegoats" for the Mexican crisis.

"According to some," Cox said in a prepared statement, "the violence in Mexico is not the fault of the Mexican drug cartels or their American customers, nor is it the fault of decades of Mexican government corruption.

In their views, the fault lies with American gun owners.
"That, Cox continued, "is an outrageous assertion."

But that assertion continues.
And last week, three Democratic lawmakers were quick to notify Attorney General Holder of their "vigorous opposition" to any new gun restrictions the Obama administration might be considering.

The three lawmakers were Alaska Senator Mark Begich and - you guessed it - Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester.

Despite some ugly times that will likely lie ahead, it seems it's not too-late to hope for some non-partisan common sense to be injected into Congress.

OK, maybe that's optimistic, but we'll take this win - and all the support we can muster. Thank you, Senators Tester and Baucus, for your unhesitating support.

Oh yeah - the following note is up on the Georgia Arms website:"Dear Loyal Customers,Thanks to your voice, DOD has rescinded the order to mutilate all spent cases as of 4:30 pm on 3/17/09. We appreciate the time and effort that you expended, together we all made a difference.

We will be posting the email we received from DOD as well as any additional information within the next 12-16 hours.

Thanks so much and lets get to work!!!"--Jim Shepherd

That was CLOSE!

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Obama Losing Focus?

They say The President losing his focus? Really?
I had always thought his focus was to make America a socialist state?
To re-make America in the model of Marxist traditions.
Has he changed his intent?

Well, first let me say that I don't believe the guy is smart enough to pull any of this 'nation changing' off. Hell, he can't even get his Cabinet in order! It's been nearly 2 months and weasels are still withdrawing their name from consideration! It's rather obvious that the folks he trusts and relys on don't have a clue either!

Here's an article from Human Events you might enjoy:
Criticism Shows Obama Is Losing Focus
Michael Barone
We've been hearing a lot of criticism of Barack Obama in recent days from pro-Obama corners -- from celebrity investor Warren Buffett, from moderate conservative columnist David Brooks, from one of the Democratic Party's deepest thinkers, William Galston -- all along the same lines. Put aside your plans, announced in your budget, for national health insurance, for a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases, for effectively abolishing the secret ballot in unionization elections.

And, they might have added, for higher taxes on, and a reduction in, their charitable deductions to channel money away from charities and nonprofits and toward the government. Pay attention to the first thing on your platter and the nation's, Buffett and Brooks and Galston say: the financial crisis.

The answer Obama has given, in advance, is that we can only solve our economic problems by advancing these other programs. But the real answer came from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

None of the issues addressed in the Obama budget was in any way a cause of the financial crisis.
We did not have a housing bubble collapse because we don't have a national health insurance program.
We don't have toxic waste clogging the balance sheets of the banks and other financial institutions because of carbon emissions.
The Bush tax cuts were not a proximate cause of the giant public debt being run up under the Toxic Assets Relief Program or the 2009 stimulus package.

Moreover, as Galston points out, the New Deal doesn't provide a precedent for the Obama budget. In his first months in office, Franklin Roosevelt concentrated on repairing a financial system that was in much worse shape than ours is today, with most banks closed.
Roosevelt got most of them open and running again.

It was a couple of years later that the programs we remember the New Deal for were passed -- Social Security, the Wagner labor act, higher taxes on high earners. (Well, Roosevelt did sneak in repeal of Prohibition.) Even Roosevelt's first expansion of welfare rolls, at the end of 1933, was abruptly cancelled when the snows melted in spring 1934.

There's another reason to put aside the Obama budget plans. We're in a severe recession, and each of his major proposals is going to stunt the growth of the private sector economy.

But most of them -- national health insurance, forced unionization, higher taxes on high earners -- have the offsetting advantage, from Obama's point of view. They would "spread the wealth around," as he told Joe the Plumber, even if there is less wealth to spread around.

The same cannot be said of cap-and-trade.
It would take some $600 billion out of the private sector economy in order to avoid an environmental crisis that is supposed to arrive in -- oh, some time around 2055.

In other words, we are not dealing with here-and-now facts, as we are in the financial crisis, but with predictions based on theories ... theories that have not done a very good job of predicting the climate over the last decade (they said it would get warmer; it's gotten a little colder). Theories that do not retrospectively explain climactic variations in the past.

We are dealing here with something more like religion and less like science.
We are told that all argument about global warming must end.
We must have faith!

But it is religion that asks us to have faith; science presents us with theories that can be tested by observation and produce replicable results -- and the results for 2055 aren't in.

We are told that we must repent of our misdeeds, for driving SUVs or (unless you're Al Gore or a Hollywood liberal) flying in private jets.

And we are told that we must atone for our sins, by paying more for every bit of energy we use and remembering to recycle.

It is religion that asks for repentance and offers rituals for atonement; science suggests ways we can adapt and cope with change.

It makes sense to understand how the physical environment may be damaged by changes in climate and to prepare for repairs that may be needed, and we are already doing that.

It makes no sense to cripple a struggling economy in order to prevent damage that may or may not occur many years from now. Voters seem to understand that.

Gallup reports that 60 percent of Americans say global warming will not pose a serious threat to them or their way of life in their lifetimes. Or as Stuart Taylor, another moderate critic of the Obama budget, puts it, when your house is on fire, you don't water the lawn.

So when your focus is on re-making a nation in your own image, and it turns out that 'national problems' are much bigger than you ever expected, it surely makes sense that 'losing one's focus' would follow.

The only problem is that this guy doesn't know what he's doing!
He has always been an empty suit... Now he's in charge.

How is he going to put out fires with $1000 bills?

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Help A Muslim Buy A House? You Will!

My jaw dropped when I read this one...

From Investors Business Daily
Mortgage Madness
Minnesota is offering a program to Muslims who want to buy a home but don't want to break their religion's laws about interest.

Where are the civil libertarians who want to keep church and state separated?

The Minnesota program, the first in the nation, will be administered by the state's housing agency, which will buy homes, with taxpayers' dollars, and resell them at higher prices to Muslim buyers.

To circumvent Islamic Shariah law, which, we're told, forbids Muslims from buying or selling loans that charge interest, the transaction will have higher up-front costs, including the amount of interest that would have been charged over the life of the loan.

This is a clear mixing of religion and state, which runs afoul of the Constitution and should incite the American Civil Liberties Union to launch a complaint and file a lawsuit.

Yet we've seen no word from the group that recently filed a lawsuit against a Muslim, mosque-based charter school that takes public funds.

Is the organization acting cautiously, afraid to anger a group whose more enraged members have gained a reputation for taking advantage of our politically correct culture and bullying officials to get their way?

Have ACLU leaders lost their nerve, fearful activists will target them?

They've already seen Minnesota officials, who, when pushed by activists demanding preferential treatment for Muslims, agreed to provide foot-washing facilities on the campuses of several universities.

Surely if the Minnesota home-buying program — called Murabaha financing — were reserved for only Christians or Jews, the ACLU would have roared by now.

But it hasn't.
If this lack of interest goes on, someone else needs to take up the cause.

It's not within the legitimate duties of government to ensure that members of certain religions can buy homes.

The private sector, however, is under no such restrictions. It's free to offer Shariah-compliant loans and will do so if there's a demand.

So far, though, only a few U.S. lenders make the loans.

That's not evidence of market failure nor a compelling reason for government to meddle in the market or ruin a good business opportunity.
It's simply evidence of a weak, or possibly burgeoning, market.

The economy is troubled because policymakers have subsidized a politically favored group of homebuyers and skewed the housing market.

While financing homes for a few thousand Minnesota Muslims won't kill the economy, the program isn't likely to be limited to only that state for long.

Political correctness and lawmakers' eagerness to appear "tolerant" drive much public policy, while the hard-earned lessons of the past and present go unheeded.

Personally, I don't care if Muslims buy houses or not.
I DO care if they are allowed to buy a house with ANY public funding!

When so-called mainstream Muslims begin to condemn the terrorist attacks on The West and begin to convince me that they have no desire to wash the globe in fear and sharia law, I'll begin to invite them into America.

Until Muslims begin to convince me that they DO NOT support the extremists, ALL Muslims are on MY terrorist watch list!

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Detainees Say They Planned Sept. 11

For all you conspiracy nuts out there that have held the view that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Halliburton, The CIA, The FBI and all of government caused the terror attacks of September, 2001, here's something for you to chew on.
From The New York Times, no less!

Detainees Say They Planned Sept. 11
By William Glabberson
The five detainees at Guantánamo Bay charged with planning the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have filed a document with the military commission at the United States naval base there expressing pride at their accomplishment and accepting full responsibility for the killing of nearly 3,000 people.

The document, which may be released publicly on Tuesday, uses the Arabic term for a consultative assembly in describing the five men as the “9/11 Shura Council,” and it says their actions were an offering to God, according to excerpts of the document that were read to a reporter by a government official who was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The document is titled “The Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations,” the military judge at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp said in a separate filing, obtained by The New York Times, that describes the detainees’ document.

The document was filed on behalf of the five men, including
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has described himself as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

President Obama halted the military proceedings at Guantánamo in the first days after his inauguration, and the five men’s case is on hiatus until the government decides how it will proceed.

Several of the men have earlier said in military commission proceedings at Guantánamo that they planned the 2001 attacks and that they sought martyrdom.

The strategic goal of the five men in making the new filing, which reached the military court on March 5, was not clear.

In their filing, the men describe the planning of the Sept. 11 attacks and the killing of Americans as a model of Islamic action, and say the American government’s accusations cause them no shame, according to the excerpts read by the government official.

“To us,” the official continued reading, “they are not accusations. To us they are a badge of honor, which we carry with honor.”

It appears that the men wrote the document at meetings they are permitted to conduct periodically at the detention camp without lawyers.

In his brief court order describing the filing, the military judge who has been handling the case, Col. Stephen R. Henley of the Army, said the men sought no specific legal action.

Judge Henley ordered that the filing be released immediately, but officials said objections from lawyers for two of the men had held up release Monday.

All five of the men have said they want to represent themselves, but in the case of these two men,
Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, the military judge had not yet determined their competency when the proceedings were halted.

Here's another take on the news...

Truther heartache: 5 Gitmo detainees admit to planning 9/11
This won't kill the 9/11 Truther Movement. That's because the movement is not grounded in reality and too many people have too much of an emotional investment in conspiracy to let it go.

But the confessions voluntarily given by the 5 Guantanamo detainees who are being charged with planning the 9/11 attacks should seal the deal for all but the looniest of 9/11 Truthers.

For the real 9/11 truther whackjobs, they will spin this as some kind of plot to deflect attention from the real culprits; Bush and the neocons.

We might ask these guys to get a life and come out from under the bed but then they wouldn't have anything to do with themselves. They'd have to go out and get a job - much too normal for them. So in the meantime, they spin ever kookier conspiracies and ignore all evidence to the contrary - including this.

This appears to be a challenge of some kind to the Obama administration who want to close Gitmo but don't know where to put the prisoners and has stopped the military tribunals even though they have no clue about how to proceed in dispensing justice.

Maybe they'll just make them swear on the Koran to be good little terrorists and not do it again, then let them go. Makes as much sense as anything we've heard from the Obama administration so far.

I wonder if this will change any minds in the conspiracy groups???

Obama's Foreign Policy... aka, Whatever...

Last week we saw the true nature of the Obama administration's naivete in foreign affairs. Man-O-Man, did we see them!

First, that bastion of decorum, that world traveled and oh so experienced Secretary Of State we now have... one Hillary Clinton, was trying to impress the Russians in Geneva. So she thought it would be cool to start over.

Her idea was to make a gift to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red "reset button" to symbolise improved ties... 'Starting Over'.
But, it didn't quite work out the way she had planned.

Clinton, Lavrov push wrong reset button on ties
GENEVA, March 6 (Reuters) -
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red "reset button" to symbolise improved ties, but the gift drew smiles as the word "reset" was mistranslated into the Russian for "overcharge".

"I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: 'We want to reset our relationship and so we will do it together," said Clinton, presenting Lavrov with a palm-sized yellow box with a red button.

Clinton joked to Lavrov: "We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?"

"You got it wrong," said Lavrov, smiling as the two pushed the reset button together before dinner at a Geneva hotel.

He told Clinton the word "Peregruzka" meant "overcharge", to which Clinton replied: "We won't let you do that to us."

Yeah, Ok. First you mess up with the translation, then you further insult Lavrov by saying 'We won't let you do that to us'!

Not only do you get the translation wrong, but you tell him we're NOT going to make any deals with you that might be some kind of swindle!

What a diplomat! What an embarrassment!
But of course the MainStream Media just let it slide...
It was a sort of joke? Huh?
Recall this woman at once!

Then, when British PM Brown visits and expects a certain amount of protocol and decorum he not only gets snubbed, but he gets the Chicago ghetto treatment!

First Obama canceled the traditional press speech in the Rose Garden.

White House cancels Brown press conference in Rose Garden
Gordon Brown's attempts to portray himself as a global leader in a time of crisis have been dealt a blow by White House planners - and Washington's worst snowstorm in years.

Downing Street officials discovered last night that Prime Minister would not, as had been widely reported, hold a joint press conference with President Obama after their talks at the White House today.

Instead, the White House press office announced what it called a "pool spray" - a few shouted questions from selected agency reporters as the two men sat down for talks and photographers clicked away.

After representations from British diplomats, it was agreed to hold open it up more widely and allow a total of four questions - two from each side - at a "press availability" in the Oval Office after the talks.

British officials, denying any deliberate snub, said that a slightly more formal event planned in the Rose Garden after the meeting had been cancelled because the grounds of the White House are blanketed in snow.

After a working lunch with Mr Brown, Mr Obama will then head off to make a speech at the Department of the Interior before meeting a delegation at the Boy Scouts of America, the White House said. If Mr Brown wanted to hold a press conference, he would have to do so across town at the British Embassy.

No 10 had been celebrating a diplomatic success in ensuring that Mr Brown becomes the first European leader received by Mr Obama in the White House – an honour closely sought by President Sarkozy of France and Angela Merkel, the Germany Chancellor.

Although Mr Obama is by no means as anglophile as his predecessors – he has already returned a bust of Winston Churchill that sat in the Oval Office under President Bush – Mr Brown is hoping to be able to demonstrate a "special partnership" between Britain and the United States.

So, Did Obama snub PM Brown or not?

Here's what The Mail had to say about it.

Then there's this:

Some British Media Say Obama Snubbed Prime Minister; U.S. Lawmakers Unsure
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer

After British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, lawmakers told CNSNews.com they were unsure if the Obama administration had “snubbed” Brown – as several British newspapers reported Tuesday – but said that as the leader of America’s closest ally, Brown should have been treated with the utmost courtesy.

British newspapers covering Brown’s visit to Washington, D.C., reported Tuesday that the White House had snubbed Brown by canceling a live Rose Garden press conference and omitting state dinners and receptions that are traditional events for visiting foreign dignitaries.

“I am sure he was shown the proper amount of hospitality,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), told CNSNews.com. “I am sure the president had his reasons [for canceling the press conference and omitting a formal dinner] though I am not very well acquainted with international protocol or how the president hosted Prime Minister Brown.”

“I think the reception that counts is not simply the formality of the White House but the reception here [in the Capitol], and it was fantastic,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who also told CNSNews.com he was unaware of reports that the White House had snubbed Brown. The Independent, a British newspaper, headlined a story Tuesday, “Brown Faces Humiliation after Obama Snub.”

“The joint presser is usually a given on these trips, so this is odd,” wrote Benedict Brogan, who blogged about Brown’s trip for The Daily Mail. "It may be the White House wants to avoid the bunfight that must come with Mr. Obama's every appearance.

But no press conference? Embarrassing.”
“Snow Scuppers Brown’s Hopes in DC,” The Financial Times said in a headline.

But, according to a BBC report on Tuesday, No. 10 Downing Street dismissed allegations that the White House had been inhospitable to Brown – and the White House claimed that the formal press conference, originally planned to take place outdoors, had been moved indoors because of “snow.”

Instead, Brown and Obama fielded reporters’ questions in a taped session known as a “pool spray” in the Oval Office.

In Brown’s 2007 visit to the United States, his first visit as prime minister, Bush invited him to Camp David where the leaders met for hours and addressed the media in a joint press conference.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who shared a close relationship with Bush, also received a warm welcome from President Clinton, who ordered a 19-gun salute to mark Blair’s 1998 visit.

During Brown’s latest visit, there was no formal dinner or reception, though Obama and Brown shared a “working lunch” in the Old Family Dining Room at the White House on Tuesday...

Sounds like a snub to me? What about you?

And, here's more:

The Not-So-Special Relationship: Why Obama Snubbed Gordon Brown
The exchange of gifts seemed to say it all: for Barack Obama, an ornamental pen holder carved from the timbers of the HMS Gannet, a British naval vessel that took part in the battle to end the slave trade; for Gordon Brown, a box set of classic American movies on DVD.

Personally, I’m a big fan of giving DVD box sets as presents.

Not only are they cheap, but they look impressive on a bookshelf and can be handily purchased at short notice, due to the fact that they’re piled high in stores that can’t get rid of them.

In other words, they’re the perfect last-minute gift for someone you can’t be bothered to expend much time, money or effort on.

Maybe it was laziness on the part of the White House, or maybe it simply reflects the fact the Obama belongs to a generation that attaches more historical and emotional significance to movies than to antiques, however symbolic.

Nonetheless, the British press, eager to latch on to any evidence of Obama delivering a “snub” to Brown, was suitably miffed.

Neither Downing Street nor the White House has confirmed which movies were in the collection, but it’s thought to include The Grapes of Wrath, the movie of John Steinbeck’s Great Depression novel.

Commentators have drawn obvious parallels between that movie and the current economic climate, but those looking for allegorical rather than literal associations might find another film said to be on the list more interesting: Sunset Boulevard, the story of a faded star hooking up with a younger man in the hopes of resurrecting her career...

A box set of DVD? WTF?
Those DVD;s won't even play in Britain! They're coded for geographic location to prevent piracy! I suspect that was all Michell could find in The White House Gift Shop?

But this isn't the first snub from the Omaba Administration:

Obama Snubs Nation's Heroes, Becomes the First President to Skip Ball Honoring Medal of Honor Recipients in Over 50 Years

Barack Obama may have stumbled over his words briefly during his inauguration, but he made an even bigger blunder later Tuesday evening.

The newly sworn-in President opted not to appear at what should have been one of the most important Balls on his agenda that evening - The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball.

The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball was begun in 1953 for President Dwight Eisenhower's inauguration.

The event recognized recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military award. There were 48 Medal of Honor recipients in attendance, who were undoubtedly disappointed by the Commander-in-Chief's failure to show.

Over the past 56 years and 14 inaugurations, no President has skipped this event - until now.

The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball is sponsored by the American Legion, and co-sponsored by 13 other veteran's service organizations, including those such as the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

Instead of attending this ball honoring our nation's heroes, Obama was busy making stops at 10 other official balls. Obama and his wife's first stop was at the Neighborhood Ball.

From there they went to the Home State Ball for Illinois and Hawaii, the Commander-in-Chief Ball, the Youth Inaugural Ball, and the Home State Ball for Delaware and Pennsylvania. They finished off the night with brief appearances at the Mid-Atlantic, Western, Midwest, Eastern, and Southern regional Balls.

So, now we know what is really impoortant in the Obama Administration. Having parties, going to balls, flouting their new-found oppulance, and being very dis-respectful to our greatest ally in the free world!

If you're so inclined, you can writh the British embassy and appoligize for our leader's rude behavior.

The British Embassy
3100 Massachusetts Ave. , NW
Washington, DC

Arrogance and naievte on display.
Chicago politics as usual...

And this is what you voted for?

Monday, March 9, 2009

The American Form Of Governmnet

If you have a few minutes, you might enjoy this presentation...