truthforamerica

Barack Obama President During World War II?

2010-06-05T08:51:00.000-07:00

Author: truthforamerica@hotmail.com

On December 7th, 1941, Japanese fighter planes launched a bombing attack on the U.S. Naval Base Pearl Harbor. This act shocked and horrified the nation as people saw the horrible images broadcasted on the news. President Barack Obama was quickly notified while playing golf with the former union boss Andy Stearn of the Services Employees International Union. One of his top national security advisors was on the ski slopes at the time but he went ahead and finished his vacation before heading to Washington, D.C. Prominent figures such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg immediately speculated that the attacks were motivated by Japanese pilots who were unhappy with their nation’s government run health care plan or dissatisfied with their government. After recovering from the initial shock, Americans became angry that so many innocent lives were lost and that their homeland had been attacked. They looked to their President for the next move and all wanted to be assured that this horrible injustice would not go unpunished. President Obama quickly called together a summit of his top Cabinet officials, union leaders, liberal activists, and trial lawyers to discuss this dire situation. They were broken up into small groups and different ideas were formulated on how to deal with the situation. After the 3 hour summit was over, Obama gathered the suggestions and deliberated for 14 days to make a decision. He also conferred with liberal blogs such as the Daily Kos and Moveon.org. All the TV networks were instructed to carry his address to the nation immediately after American Idol so that the majority of Americans would be more likely to hear his speech. A new state of the art teleprompter was flown in by a F16 jet to Washington, D.C. because Vice President Biden had broken the official one while on a speaking engagement in Colorado. The night came that everyone was to hear the leader of the free world speak and these were his words:

“My fellow Americans, two weeks ago a group of Japanese extremists launched an attack against Pearl Harbor. Due to the inaction of the previous administration in not setting up the proper defenses there, I inherited this unfortunate situation. This was a despicable act and I condemn it. I have issued an Executive Order instructing my Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to immediately add Japanese fighter pilots to our National Security Threat List along with right wing extremists, Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Pharma, CEO’s, talk radio, Fox News, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Tea Party organizers. While this attack was despicable, it does not reflect the entire nation of Japan and we do not need to condemn the whole nation for the action of a few. Most of the pilots flew away, but we were able to capture several prisoners and we have read them their Miranda rights. After we learned that three of our Navy Seals became violent with one of the prisoners by bloodying his lip, we immediately began court martial proceedings against them. In addition, we are investigating the interrogation practices of the previous administration and its lawyers. We will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. My Attorney General, Eric Holder, has a lot of experience to conduct these prosecutions. His background uniquely qualifies him for this task as head of the Justice Department. He formerly worked for the prestigious law firm Covington & Burling, which represented many such extremists. This will help us to make sure that these Japanese prisoners are given all their rights under the U.S. Constitution. They have been assigned the top ACLU lawyers in the nation and a trial will be held in the U.S District Court in Pearl Harbor two years from now. We are restricting the cost of these proceedings not to exceed $200 million dollars. First, we need to focus on what we did as a nation to provoke this attack. We need to understand what made these extremists upset at us. In the ensuing weeks, I will instruct the media to air documentaries about the lives of the extremists and their motivation for initiating these attacks. They obviously came from an underprivileged class. Most likely they were foreclosed on or tricked into a mortgage they didn’t understand. We will get approval from the United Nations to conduct a military action in Japan to locate other extremist Japanese fighter pilots that may be in hiding. I have already put our naval fleet on top alert to be ready for this troop occupation in Japan and this fleet will be led by the newly christened destroyer U.S.S. Saul Alinsky. This special Navy ship was named after a man who is one of my heroes and also the author of a great book that has greatly influenced my life—Rules for Radicals. Although Japan has joined an Axis of Evil with Germany and Italy, we must not get sidetracked getting entangled with the question of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler has no weapons of mass destruction and has not attacked us directly. We will conduct diplomatic talks with him. This will be the most effective way to confront the Nazi threat. Unfortunately, we were unable to stop him from invading Poland due to my order to dismantle our missile defense system there. At this time, we will work with our nation’s allies to stop the evil threat with the exception of Israel. They have launched raids against Hamas sympathizers in seeming self-defense without U.N. approval. That country has also chosen the inflammatory decision of building more apartment buildings in the city of Jerusalem. It’s not fair to the surrounding Arab nations for Israel to be building on its own land. We will seek help from U.N. nations as Israel cannot be relied on at this time. I have appointed Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, and Sean Penn as our goodwill ambassadors to the U.N. I will also visit the countries of potential allies and bow to their leaders if that will help to mobilize support. To finance this operation, we will issue war bonds which people making over $250,000 a year will be required to purchase. Wall Street firms will be required to loan money to the U.S. Treasury. If they don’t comply, I will instruct Senator Chris Dodd to write another financial regulation bill to take more of their profits. We will make additional cuts as needed to the NASA program and the overall defense budget. It is crucial during these trying times that we ramp up our entitlement spending so that the working class is not forgotten.
To prepare for this troop occupation, we will need to mobilize our manufacturing sector to produce the needed military equipment. These factories will employ members of the SEIU, ACORN, and Organizing for America. We will award no bid contracts to select unions to ensure that we are using the best options for production. The SEIU has already been chosen to be the exclusive contractor for all support personnel. We will limit the CEO pay of weapons manufacturers since they will be making windfall profits on increased military demand. We will send our best and most well-trained troops to undertake this mission. As with my philosophy of financial reform, I do not want our soldiers to engage in risky behavior. We have just added a new medal to be awarded to combat troops called the Courageous Medal of Restraint. It will also be awarded posthumously as situations demand it. We are also re-writing the Rules of Engagement to make sure they are aligned with U.N. and Code Pink guidelines. As I proposed early in my presidency, we will require health insurance companies to cover all combat related injuries of our wounded soldiers. I have carefully considered who to assign as Supreme Commander of this operation. As I did with my Supreme Court nominees, I did not select someone based on their qualifications alone for the job. I looked to see if their philosophy aligned with mine and if that person has real life experience. Someone who is down with the struggle. I can think of no better person than Bertha Lewis, the former CEO of ACORN. She has extensive experience in community organizing like myself and the background of running an extremely ethical organization. I have appointed my friend Bill Ayers to be in charge of all military bomb making departments as he has extensive experience trying to blow up various American landmarks. Al Sharpton will be appointed as my Direction of Race Relations. To accomplish our national security interests while meeting the imminent threat of global warming, I will consult Al Gore about the environmental impact that this military action may have. We have retro-fitted our battleships with wind turbines and solar panels for maximum efficiency. This will help to achieve our independence from fossil fuels. We will loan Brazil money so that they can drill for oil and this will help us further our green initiatives. We will discard our Humvees and replace them with GM hybrid all terrain SUV’s. I have appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission that will report to me at the end of this year on our progress.
Let me be clear, we need to reform war. It has been far too long business as usual and our military has been corrupted by the special interest groups who believe in American superiority. We will set a specific timeline so that our enemies know what to expect and withdraw our troops in 18 months. We will also build a prisoner detention facility in Illinois at the request of Senator Dick Durbin. He has informed me that this is a wonderful way to create jobs and this will help highlight my laser-like focus on job creation. We will do this and ensure that these attackers can be guaranteed of their civil rights. We have released the number of bombs in our arsenal to encourage nations like Nazi Germany to reduce their military stockpiles. Whether we like it or not, we are a military superpower. Our goal is to become more aligned with other countries as citizens of the world and reduce our military superpower status. As I said in a recent speech at West Point, we are creating a different kind of military now. It will be more in line with international interests. It will function in similar ways to the Peace Corpse (official Obama pronunciation). As I said early in my campaign, we will also create a civilian force just as powerful as the military. In spite of the need for increased national security, we will not allow any profiling of Japanese, Italian, or Germans coming over our borders without proper paperwork. We are not a nation defined by its borders. At this sober time during my historic presidency, we must pause for a time of reflection. I do not think it is appropriate to observe a National Day of Prayer. In response to Muslim criticism, I have disinvited Shirley Dobson from leading the traditional observance in the White House and Franklin Graham from leading in prayer at the Pentagon. Instead, I have set up a religious coalition to be led by my former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and prominent American Muslim leaders. To make sure that the war press coverage is fair, I have instructed my Information Czar, Cass Sunstein to monitor the flow of information. He believes as I do that certain news sources such as talk radio and internet sites do not portray the accurate coverage that is found in more reliable networks like MSNBC. We will encourage voluntary action but may require forced compliance. As my counter terrorism advisor John Brennan recently said, I agree that the right wing is aiding and abetting the enemy by opposing my administration’s efforts so we will do what is needed to silence those loud voices.
As my wife Michelle so eloquently said, we as a couple feel for the first time really proud of this country ever since I became the President. As I once told Harry Reid, I have a gift. I am the one we’ve been waiting for. I want to fundamentally transform this country and we can change it together. Thank you, and I bless America.”

In the following months, the military action did not go as smoothly as planned. The public became more disillusioned and dissatisfied with our progress. As soon as public sentiment began to change, politicians quickly saw that attacking the military could be a boost to their re-election campaigns. Prominent Democrat politicians began to publicly undermine the military’s efforts. Pete Stark exclaimed that the President sent kids off the war to get their heads blown off for his own amusement. Dick Durbin compared CIA interrogators to Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, and Paul Pott. Hillary Clinton all but called the commanding general a liar by telling him during his Congressional testimony that what he said would “require a willing suspension of disbelief.” James Clyburn said that military success could be bad for the Democrat Party. Russ Feingold said the troops were dying for no good reason. John Kerry told a group of soldiers that if they aren’t well educated, they would get stuck fighting in Japan. He also said that soldiers were terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night. A newcomer and young senator from Illinois said that the military was just air raiding villages and killing civilians. Chuck Schumer said that any military success would happen in spite of military surges in forces. John Murtha called U.S. Marines murderers. Harry Reid declared the war lost. The New York Times gladly published intelligence information that was highly classified. CBS News published reports about planned military strategy in advance. These statements reflected a growing disdain of the U.S. military and increased sympathy towards other countries that disliked the United States. Targeted bombing missions over Japan had limited success as there were no fueling locations between Hawaii and Japan for long range flights. It was proposed to capture the island of Iwo Jima, but Lisa Jackson of the EPA and environmental extremists felt that an invasion of the island would disrupt the ecological balance on the beaches. The idea was quickly scrapped. As the years went on, the military continued to conduct missions but extremists surfaced all over the world and not just in Japan. Kamikaze pilots flew their planes into ships and buildings, killing Americans and causing massive damage. These attacks consistently were caused by extremists from Japan, but political correctness prevented profiling at airports and other security checkpoints. Not all Japanese people were extremists, but all the kamikaze attackers were Japanese. Advocacy groups such as CAJR—Council of American Japanese Relations constantly filed lawsuits and kept up political heat to prevent any potential profiling. Grandmothers and disabled children were pulled out of lines to be searched to present the mirage of fairness. Counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan asserted that kamikaze was a wonderful and legitimate struggle, but extremists had perverted the ideology and were using it to kill others through new attack methods. It was suggested to drop a newly developed atomic bomb on either Japan or Germany to end the hostilities, but this idea was quickly vetoed by Obama as too many civilians would perish. Meanwhile, Adolph Hitler killed millions of Jews and opponents to his new Nazi government. He continued to invade smaller countries and plant the Nazi flag in the capitols to show Nazi control. The stance of the administration was to continue to conduct talks with these dictators because an aggressive diplomacy campaign was the ultimate objective. Many in Congress pushed to pas legislative economic sanctions against the finance capitol of Iran, Germany. However, the Obama administration would not support it. Because of this passive mentality, evil flourished. The situation was a disastrous quagmire and a new President was elected at the end of Obama’s term. The newly elected President Ronald Reagan gave new hope to Americans. After being sworn in, he immediately gave military commanders authority to launch a concerted attack against Japan and Germany. The Air Force dropped massive bombs on Tokyo and Japan quickly surrendered. American ground forces rumbled across Germany and invaded Berlin. Adolph Hitler was captured and immediately hung in the public square. Independence from Nazi rule was granted to the invaded countries of Britain, France, and Poland. Russia under Joseph Stalin saw the power of the United States and kept to itself. The new foreign policy of peace through strength showed the world that America loves peace, but wouldn’t accept it at any price.

America is a beacon of freedom for the world. Joe Biden said recently that Brussels had as much of a claim on the term “capitol of the free world” as we do. This is ludicrous. America has liberated and protected many countries around the world while shedding the blood of patriots to defend liberty both here at home and abroad. All we asked in return was enough land to bury the fallen. Robert E. Lee once said, “It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it.” We don’t like war, but we are America. If you attack us, you should pay dearly. It doesn’t matter if the attacker is a country or an ideology. Currently, we are in a war against Islamic terrorism. As long as we seek to detach those two words, we will always struggle to prevail. Until we identify the enemy, we can’t win the war. If we give credence to dictators such as Hugo Chavez while snubbing Israel, once could question if America still stands for the principles that made this country great. Alexis de Tocqueville said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” America doesn’t need fundamental transformation, it needs revitalization. We must return to the founding principles which made this country great. A return to freedom and a love for the rugged individuality that made this country so wonderful. A desire for freedom from collectivism and government dependence. A respect for the Judeo-Christian principles which guided our founding fathers as they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A nation founded under God. Samuel Adams said, “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” Freedom requires the voices of patriots who love their country and are willing to stand up for liberty. Until then, and may we hope to remain, the freest nation on Earth—The United States of America.

Author: truthforamerica@hotmail.com

Barack Obama Exposed

2008-09-21T19:42:00.000-07:00

"If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough the people will believe it!” exclaimed Adolph Hitler over 50 years ago. Barack Obama has run a presidential campaign that is based on two words: hope and change. When you ask the average Obama supporter what his accomplishments are or what he would change America to, you will most likely get a blank stare in return. The fact is that most people know very little about Barack Hussein Obama but get starry eyed because he has achieved celebrity status in America. He has used soaring rhetoric and empty promises to dupe the American people into believing that he is something that he isn’t. Obama is a radical leftist and could be easily called a Marxist because of his extreme ideology. He espouses socialist views that would drastically take this country to the left. Watch any interview of speeches that he gives and the solution that he gives for every problem is more government. Most people welcome this because they don’t want to be personally responsible for their lives anyway. They would rather hand over their freedoms one by one to an even larger government. They don’t realize that the government that is large enough to give them everything is also large enough to take everything away. You have heard the rumors and speculation surrounding just who Obama is. In this thoroughly researched article, I would like to consolidate the facts into a point by point analysis that will give you a much clearer picture of what a disaster Barack the Radical would be for this country.

1. Obama supports infanticide. Late-term abortions are designed to prevent a baby from living outside of a mother’s womb. Most would define a baby who survives an abortion as a human being with a right to live. While Obama was a state senator, an Illinois nurse named Jill Stanek testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee. She related an experience where she found an abandoned Down Syndrome baby who was an abortion survivor in a soiled utility room. She held him for the 45 minutes that he lived while barely clinging to life. http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html Her stunning story can be watched here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhsTCySy734 Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against the bill that would have recognized these abortion survivors as human beings. Rather than stick to his position which would have probably been unpopular, he decided to vote “Present” as he would later do over 100 times on multiple issues. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf Pg 86-87 He voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. On March 29, 2008, commented on his two daughters. “I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo His opposition to the 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have recognized abortion survivors as human beings, highlights what a radical abortion stance he really holds. John McCain has been emphatic that life begins at conception. Obama says that to answer that question would be above his pay grade. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mem_xEcZHVY An emerging spokeswoman for the Born Alive Act has been featured in a new ad that is very sobering. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anieuWFWe8s Gianna Jessen tells her story of surviving an abortion and promotes the Born Alive information here: http://bornalivetruth.org/ Is it fair to ask the question, “If the down syndrome child that was born to Sarah Palin had been born to the Obamas, would that child still be alive?” Maybe this is also why he supported sex education for kindergarteners. But wait, his campaign clarified that is should be “age appropriate.” http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/19/obamas-great-idea-sex-ed-for-kindergarteners/

2. Is Obama a Muslim? No one can prove this definitely. The reason that some people question this is because he has had some facts spring up that cause people to wonder. An American expatriate in Southeast Asia points out that Obama had his religion listed as Islam when enrolling in school in Jakarta. http://laotze.blogspot.com/2007/01/tracking-down-obama-in-indonesia-part-3.html In his book Obama Nation, Dr. Jerome Corsi highlights something that Obama said himself. “Out of the blue, Obama clearly states, “In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic School…….In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.” (Corsi, Page 52) There was an extensive article in the LA Times that listed assertions from Obama’s childhood classmates that he was a Muslim. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,1,7181735,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation. “On July 9,2006, the Jakarta daily Banjarmasin Post published an interview with Rony Amir, a classmate of Barry Soetoro’s at the Franciscan Assisi Primary School……Amir recalled Obama’s enjoying football and marbles, as well as being a Muslim. “We often asked Barry to the prayer room close to the house, when he lived in Street H Ramli, in the Menteng Dalam area of Jakarta”…..Amir speculated that Obama had to change his religion if he planned to run for the president of the United States, because America would never elect a Muslim president.” (Corsi, 58-59) Other childhood friends insist that he was a Muslim. http://laotze.blogspot.com/2007/01/obama-hoisted-on-his-own-petard-one.html “In introducing Reverend Wright in Dreams from My Father, Obama says in passing that Wright had dabbled with liquor, Islam, and black nationalism in the 1960s. In the version of his sermon “Audacity to Hope,” from which Obama got the tile of his second book, Wright himself admits he was a Black Muslim for a time. “I was influenced by Martin King, yes, but there was this other guy named Malcolm, and I tried one brief time being a Muslim: As salaam alaikum, {Peace be with you},” Wright said in the sermon, “Anything but Christian.” If we wanted proof that Wright was ever a Black Muslim, this sermon gives us proof in Wright’s own words. One wonders if Obama did not recognize himself in the reverend and his experiences, including Islam.” (Corsi, 187) His father was a Kenyan Muslim. His stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim. Half-brother Obango is a Muslim. He came under additional scrutiny when he let slip “his Muslim faith.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAJQyMrb9is&feature=related

3. Obama recently did an almost treasonous action. He went to Iraq and tried to seek a deal with the Iraqi foreign minister to stall the withdrawal of American troops until after “he becomes President to take credit for it.” This is an act bordering on treason. He went behind the back of an acting President and American generals on the ground. The media has been very quiet on this story although it has been confirmed. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm He literally violated U.S. law and undermined the diplomatic process that we have. The Logan Act prohibits an unauthorized citizen to negotiate with foreign governments under potential felony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act The Obama campaign took over five hours to respond to this story because it is so potentially explosive. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13897 Rush Limbaugh also weighed in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IAOJ41bbF8

4. Taxes. Obama has continually changed his agenda on taxes. He touts a plan that would only raise taxes on people who earn over $250,000. Most people hear this and get very excited. People may take a second look though when they find out they are being taxed out of their other pocket. Obama’s tax plan can be based on one of the points from the Communist Manifesto. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. He believes that the police power of the government should be used to levy massive tax loads on those who are successful. In effect, income redistribution. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html You will always have the people who participate in class warfare believing that the rich should be punished for being wealthy. They of course could not have possibly earned their money legitimately so take their money and give it to those who didn’t earn it. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tax-percent-federal-2077390-taxes-tiger Obama said in his acceptance speech that he would cut capital gain taxes on small businesses. People cheered and admired his sympathy for small business owners. But was he economically ignorant as he is on other issues? Small businesses do not pay capital gains taxes anyway! http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/04/barak-obama-taxes-tech-enter-cx_sm_0905obama.html Rather, Obama wants to heavily tax people who would most likely invest in new start up businesses. Make no mistake about it. When wealthy people are taxed too much, they simply take their money out of the capital market and find more tax friendly vehicles to put it in. America is in desperate need of capital. With big banks failing, many large companies are turning to foreign countries because many organizations have large amounts of money to infuse into the U.S. Raising capital gains taxes on individuals is very dangerous to a slowing economy. Obama has had shifting positions on the issue saying that he would raise to anywhere from 20% to 28%. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LNqBS5OyqM Charles Gibson asked Obama at a presidential debate the question of capital gains taxes increases. Even though every time capital gains taxes have been raised and government revenue went down, Obama insisted that he wanted to do it for the sake of “fairness.” This would be in line with his socialist view of income redistribution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8 It has been proven that when capital gains taxes are raised, government revenue goes down. http://townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2008/04/17/obama_at_a_big_loss_over_capital_gains So what does this mean to you? If you have money in retirement plans that utilize the stock market, then you would be directly hit. Let’s say that you have $500,000 gain at retirement, instead of paying $75,000, under Obama the price tag of 28% would have you pay $140,000. It would be at that point you would realize that the “tax the rich” mantra is pure propaganda. He voted against repealing the Death Tax also. Many of his followers get excited when he talks about closing corporate tax loopholes and making them also pay more. Corporations don’t pay taxes. They simply embed those costs in the price that you pay for the service or item that they are selling. It would do everyone good to look at who actually pays taxes in America. The bottom 50% of income earners pay about 3% of the income tax bill. Obama thinks that the 1% of income earners that pay 40% of the total tax bill should be taxed much more heavily. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 So who will lay off people and quit investing when this happens? In summary, if you work hard and become very wealthy, you are part of the “evil rich” that must be punished. Your money should be redistributed to those who have not earned it. http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=a0b47e3f-db96-4356-863c-f2149cefb6c1 Many people incorrectly believe that those who earn over $250,000 are the ones that are really wealthy. Many small business owners easily earn this much in revenue when they have multiple employees. The same people that Obama is claiming to help he will hurt the most. Joe Biden also joined in by saying that paying higher taxes is patriotic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDD08sDKPgI

5. Long standing association with Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn—the unrepentant terrorists who bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and New York City Police Headquarters in the 1970’s. Ayers was a member of the radical Weather Underground that engaged in domestic terrorism against the United States. Obama felt it was necessary to knock on his door in Chicago to get the political clout that he needed for the city’s political machine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY Ayers said in the September 11, 2001 issue of the New York Times that he regretted that he didn’t do more terrorist acts in the United States. Just read this article for more and to view the photo of him stomping on the American Flag. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I Obama served on the Woods Fund Board in Chicago with this man and gave multiple speeches with him. Ayers served as the pathway for Obama to gain political notoriety. http://townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/04/17/airing_the_ayers-obama_connection Ayers to this day utters anti-American views that are utterly despicable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YrDwYNEyw8 Obama’s clear ties to Ayers should be cause for alarm to any concerned citizen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g You can watch a more detailed video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obamas_ayers_ties_are_relevant.html

6. His philosophy of income redistribution. This was touched on earlier but it is interesting to see that Obama disregards the fact that higher taxes results in lower government revenue. He would rather carry out redistribution to achieve “fairness” in his perfect utopia America where everyone would be more equal. In his recent interview with Bill O’Reilly, he outlines this flawed way of thinking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XW7tkN-_GM

7. Plan to cut defense and military spending. Instead of looking for ways to lower entitlement spending, he would rather cut down our nuclear and defense capabilities. In a time of increased importance of national security, he is worried about cutting money out of the military. Yet another reason Americans would not be safe under an Obama administration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb6EE3C7uWE While he was on his whirlwind tour of Europe, he refused a planned visit to wounded soldiers. His campaign stated that they did not want it to turn into a political event. However, the Pentagon made it very clear that he could visit as an official senator, just not with all the publicity that always surrounded him. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/25/obama-cancels-visit-to-us-troops-in-germany/ He decided to go work out at a gym instead. http://www.thelocal.de/13337/20080728/
8. Elitist. America has traditionally been a center right country. Many people pride themselves in working hard and providing for their families. There are huge blocks of voters who live in rural areas that should especially take offense at comments which Obama made at a San Francisco event. This was a gathering of big donors that threw an extravagant fundraiser for him. While there, he did not know that he was being recorded. This may explain why he was so open in using the comments that he did. He talked about these small town voters. ….”it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNoJ0q6HrK8

9. Lies. I will only mention several because you can easily find more than I have listed:
Selma. Obama gave a “Selma Speech” in which he said the following: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.” This was a falsehood. He was referring to a voting rights march in Selma that took place in 1965. He was born in August 1961. That’s a little hard to make the math work.
Selective Service. “During his 7 September 2008 interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Obama said the following: "I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there. "And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue." Obama did graduate from high school in Hawaii in 1979, but he could not have registered for Selective Service then. Nobody could. In 1975, President Gerald Ford terminated the Military Selective Service Act. It was not reinstated until July 1980. That is one year after Obama graduated from high school. In July 1980, Obama was no longer living in Hawaii. He was living in Los Angeles.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2076859/posts
Uncle liberating Auschwitz. He made up the story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzFR8IAD1jQ The fact is that the Russians liberated it. http://thesop.org/index.php?article=11330
Breaking his promise to do townhall meetings with John McCain. Earlier this year, Barack Obama promised to do townhall style debates with John McCain to get up close to the American people. So far he has refused to meet with McCain at any of these after continuing efforts by McCain to remind Obama of his promise. Could it be that Obama is scared to get away from a teleprompter? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z7sS566D8E http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/03/its-official-obama-runs-from-town-hall-debates/

10. Michelle Obama does not epitomize the character of what a first lady should be. Prominent Democrat surrogates continually insinuate that those who don’t vote for Obama do so for race reasons. Michelle wrote in her thesis at Princeton, “Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton, if often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.” Her full thesis can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2305083/PrincetonEducated-Blacks-and-the-Black-Community Earlier this year, she said some statements that many viewed as downgrading America: “we're a divided country, we're a country that is "Just downright mean, we are guided by fear, we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day," she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. "Folks are just jammed up, and it's gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I'm young. Forty-four!" http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/03/09/michelle-obama-s-mean-america-statement-gets-nearly-free-media-pass It is very understandable that she held some serious grudges against America after attending Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. Maybe this is why she said that she is proud of her country for the first time in her life since her husband is running for president. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WNGjawtP48 She also said to not vote for Sarah Palin just because she is “cute.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/18/michelle-obama-dont-vote-because-shes-cute/

11. He does not take a stand. In the Illinois Senate, Obama voted “Present” over 130 times. Instead of taking the position of yes or no, it was more politically expedient to vote present. Just go on youtube and search for all of his flipping and flopping on issues. Take any major issue and you can be pretty sure that he has changed his mind on it at some point or another.

12. Is he patriotic enough? His supporters believe that questions raised by opponents about his refusal to wear an American flag pin and the instance of not placing his hand over his heart during the National Anthem are unfounded. No one is saying that he is unpatriotic. However, his associations with those who hate this country seem to correspond with the larger picture. He said in an interview that he did not have to wear “that pin” anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmHtGQq-z_Y Here is the video where he was the only person on stage who did not put his hand over his heart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o

13. Obama wants to eliminate secret ballots in union elections. Currently if an employer brings up the option to unionize to employees, they can vote by secret ballot. Under the bill HR 800, (which Obama actively advocates to pass) the secret voting option would be eliminated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act Can you imagine the pressure that an employee would be under if they refused to vote to unionize? This is another example where Obama wants to eliminate the free choice of workers. Union organizers could individually pressure the employee to sign or lose potential benefits. The following video is a great look into this bill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jht-i0tS14 By increasing the power of the unions, the very free market economy is threatened. In a time of increasing competition, the last thing we need is an even more powerful union influence on employers. http://boortz.com/nuze/200809/09092008.html

14. Obama has close ties to many of the cronies who are in part responsible for the financial system meltdown. His top economic advisors and vice presidential selection team members are former CEO’s and officials of the failed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae institutions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj_TohAh7_E John McCain cosponsored a bill called the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This would have stopped the Enron-style accounting practices that Fannie and Freddie were engaged in. The Democrats led by Chris Dodd (who was busy getting sweetheart kickback deals from Countrywide) stopped this from ever happening. John McCain had the foresight to know what would happen (and now is happening) if Fannie and Freddie were to continue to inflate earnings reports to enlarge the bonuses of the top executives. Now the Democrats try to put this off as a failure of the Bush administration. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/ The Democrats as a whole receive the most money from these two organizations and the report can be found here: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html It is interesting to note that even though he has been in the U.S. Senate only a short time, Barack Obama is the 3rd highest recipient of these donations. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html For him to act as if he is free from any knowledge of the shady accounting practices that they mortgage giants were engaged in is totally ridiculous.

15. The very powerful teachers unions endorse him. http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2008/071308.htm These unions are getting bigger to the detriment of government schools. It is interesting to note that most elite liberals including Obama refuse to support school choice but at the same time send their kids to private schools. Monopolies all over America are broken up with the exception of the stranglehold on government schools. As long as taxpayer money is not allowed to follow the student, there will be no true competition in the education of America’s children. Parents who wish to give their children an alternative form of education are forced to pay extra on top of their taxes that go to public school funding. The teachers unions have done virtually nothing to improve education anyway. In 1989, teachers were paid $47,354 a year in today’s dollars adjusted for inflation. Now we pay them $47,750—an increase of $400. Wow! The unions vehemently oppose merit pay and that is why teachers quit in mass numbers. They overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party and that is why school choice vouchers may be a thing that is never seen.

16. Opposition to the 2nd Amendment. American’s have always felt the need for the existing right to bear arms. If citizens cannot protect themselves, how can they sleep safe in their homes at night? While Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, an interesting case emerged that showed his true beliefs on gun rights. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36995 A burglar broke into the home twice of Hale DeMar, a fifty-two year old Wilmette resident. On December 28, 2003, DeMar woke up in the middle of the night to find multiple things stolen by a thief. The next night the thief returned. Concerned for the safety of his family, DeMar shot the thief who then fled away by crashing through a front window. The burglar had an existing criminal record. On January 8, 2004 the city police chief arrested DeMar for violating the town’s handgun ban. He said, “Handguns create a hazard in the home.” DeMar fired back in a letter that was published by the Chicago Sun Times, “"Until you are shocked by a piercing alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don't suggest that some village trustee knows better and he/she can effectively task the police to protect your family from the miscreants that this society has produced." Eventually all charges were dropped because public outcry would have been overwhelming. In March 2004, the Illinois State Senate introduced Bill 2165. This would have given citizens a right to protect themselves against home invasion, overriding local ordinances against handgun possession. Barack Obama was one of 20 state senators to vote against the bill. It passed by the final of 86-25. The governor vetoed it. The Senate voted again in November to override it. Again Obama voted against the bill. It finally became law because of the overwhelming majority who recognized this fundamental right of citizens to protect themselves. Obama has consistently voted against gun rights. http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=530ecfa4-ae4e-4819-97e6-892463d99f08 Maybe that is why he mentioned the “people clinging to their guns and religion” phrase at the elite San Francisco fundraiser. Normal citizens do not have his luxury of around the clock security. It is easy for elites such as him to think that citizens don’t need to protect themselves. Before he became a national figure, Obama sat on a board called the Joyce Foundation. Among the grants he approved were nine totaling $2.7 million to gun control advocate groups. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9722.html $20,000 went to help publish this book: http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/everyhandgun/index.html

17. Europe loves him. Why would countries that have socialist style systems and have such a bad view of the United States love him so much? Why would Obama make a Europe tour instead of campaigning to gather the votes of U.S. voters? http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSLA49136220080910?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

18. Terrorists endorse him. Hamas endorsed him. Ahmed Yousef, chief political advisor to the prime minister of Hamas said on ABC radio, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that the will win the elections.” http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64247 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2KO-cZZahU Fidel Castro endorsed him also. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/obama-castro.html I’m sure you could find more, but I will leave you with a last one: communist North Korea/Kim Jong Il even likes him. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/22/yes-the-ultimate-obama-endorsement/

19. 20 year membership at the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. We all know who Reverend Wright is. The racist Black Liberation Theology preacher who was Obama’s pastor for over 20 years. He spewed hatred and racism for many years and of course Obama claimed to know nothing about it. Yeah right. He must have been sleeping through every service. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FCJ7zWEQ&feature=related If you look back at the relationships he has had with radical people, he later distances himself from them saying that they were not “the person that he knew.” Father Pfleger was also a speaker at Obama’s church and supported Obama. He was listed on the Obama website as one of the people who faith who endorses Obama. Pfleger also supported Obama financially. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWigzBClEk8 It is interesting to note that in return for the contributions from the radical preacher of racism, Obama directed $225,000 of grants to the St. Sabina programs for Father Pfleger. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0705030035may03,0,3860794.story It also makes you wonder why his pastor of 20 years Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger are not on his list of faith endorsements. http://faith.barackobama.com/page/content/faithtestimonials

20. None of his supporters can make a good argument that he is qualified to be President. He has no significant legislative accomplishments. No one knows anything of substance about him. In fact, one could make a very strong case that he would not be able to get security clearance due to his radical associations which shady characters and unrepentant terrorists. However, you are not required to have one as president. Interesting. He has one of the thinnest resumes of any candidate in presidential candidate history. But that doesn’t matter to most. They just “hope” that he will “change” things. To what? Socialism? Obama was in the U.S. Senate for just 143 days before he launched his presidential exploratory committee. He said himself in 2004 that he would not be comfortable running for president based on his inexperience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2encXLmPDo When Joe Biden was honest with voters, he said that Obama shouldn’t be elected because the presidency doesn’t lend itself to on the job training. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8 Back before MSNBC reporter Chris Matthews switched his support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, he actually became a responsible journalist for one minute and asked one of his surrogates what qualifies him to be president. That hilarious exchange can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybd7MUixxyg Why isn’t Matthews asking this question anymore? Maybe it’s because he is busy getting “thrills up his leg” after Obama speeches. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m9Gbb6NSwM

21. . Obama’s gravitation to Marxist/Communist philosophy. In his book Audacity of Hope, Obama showed his distaste for Ronald Reagan. “his John Wayne, Father Knows Best pose, his policy by anecdote, and his gratuitous assaults on the poor.” In his book Dreams from My Father, Obama mentions a friendship that he had with “Frank.” It is well documented that this was referring to Frank Marshall Davis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis Davis admitted in his own book that he was “brainwashed for years after the Bolshevik revolution.” During the McCarthy era, there was an effort to discover and root out communists in America. He was a member of the Communist Party USA and eventually moved to Hawaii to get out of increased scrutiny. This is where he crossed paths with Obama and was a mentor to him. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=56859 Obama has stated that Malcolm X had a dramatic impact on him. In 1979, Obama entered the Occidental College in Los Angeles. He later described in his book Dreams From My Father how he chose his friends. “The more politically active black student. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performers.” Even one of the bloggers featured on the Obama website is a known communist sympathizer. His name is Sam Graham-Felsen. After leaving Harvard, he was a contributor to the leftist publications such as The Nation and Socialist Viewpoint. An excerpt from that website says, “What we intend to do is to continue to promote the idea of building a revolutionary Marxist working class political party through the pages of Socialist Viewpoint magazine. We continue to have an optimistic outlook about the revolutionary potential of the world working class to rule society in its own name—socialism.” http://socialistviewpoint.org/who_we_are.html While at Harvard, he hung a Communist Party flag that he had brought back from Russia. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62681 He participated in leftist street riots in Paris. This also brings up the incident when it was discovered than one of the Obama campaign offices of Barack Obama had a flag of Che Guevara hanging up. This was the South American revolutionary who became Fidel Castro's executioner after the communist takeover in Cuba. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56293 . I have personally observed some of his supporters wearing Che Guevara T-Shirts. Why would they do that? Graham-Felsen has been an active contributor to leftist online outlets. He said in 2007 that Obama can be “considered the antiwar candidate.” http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=162299 He also looked at Obama as a “superstar of the movement.” http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=130647 Why would have Obama selected this Marxist sympathizer to be an official blogger for his campaign? He still actively posts on the Obama campaign website here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/samgrahamfelsen Wonder why the media doesn’t dig up what he wrote in the past regarding Chomsky? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29708_Obamas_Official_Blogger_A_Hardcore_Marxist#rss He was named the most liberal senator in the Senate by National Journal. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ People are willing to vote for the most radical leftist that is in the Senate?

22. Iraq. In the ongoing war on terror, Obama has taken multiple positions on Iraq. He truly stands for change—changing his mind whenever politics demands it. He has flipped so many times on the issue that one would wonder how he could possibly be a leader during a war effort. He likes to say that he opposed the war from the beginning. The fact was that he was not even a U.S. senator yet. He rather participated in anti-war rallies. Watch the video of his flip-flopping. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM In every recent interview, he refuses to acknowledge that the surge has worked because of the American military. He insists that tribal leaders should be given a large portion of the credit.

23. He refuses to allow us to tap our own energy resources. At a time when supply of energy has reached almost a crisis point. Obama continually blocks efforts to try and drill domestically. He proposes a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Yeah, Jimmy Carter tried that and the predicted revenue that it was supposed to get only reached about a third of projected numbers. Oil profits go back into exploration and dividends on stocks that shareholders own. When other countries increase their domestic supply, he advocates sealing ours up. His alternative is to inflate tires and tune up cars. What a moron. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzZNP4tTfV0

24. Refusal to privatize Social Security. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV9GZUtCgPc The government has made a disaster of Social Security. They have literally spent the money already earmarked for the program and have to figure out ways how to pay it back According to the official social security government website, the agency’s own predictions say that the program is on track to be bankrupt by 2040. http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee06-pr.htm If you were allowed to invest privately what you and your employer contribute on a monthly basis, the return would be unbelievable. If it was just $400 a month for a 40 year working lifetime invested in good mutual funds, you would have $4.7 million dollars! But people would rather get their $1600 a month and scream bloody murder if the program were to be taken out of the hands of the government.

25. Obama would impose the Fairness Doctrine. For decades, liberal bias has dominated the mainstream media. In recent years, conservative talk radio and the internet have emerged as the “new media.” This has leveled the playing field a little bit but the TV side is solidly in the Obama camp. Liberals want nothing more than to silence opposition speech. They cannot compete in the open market in the talk radio field. Air America Radio tanked due to lack of interest and a very small audience. Since they cannot compete, voices on the left have demanded the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. Simply put, if there were three hours of a conservative talk show on the air, radio stations would be forced to carry three hours of a liberal show to “make it fair” even if people didn’t want it. To keep out of the controversy, stations would no longer carry talk radio and resort to music or alternative programming. Thereby opposition would be ultimately silenced. The current law would allow the FCC to reenact the Fairness Doctrine if they chose to do so. The five person board consists of two Republicans and two Democrats. The fifth is the chairman who is appointed by the President. If Obama selected this person, it would only take a signature to reverse free speech. Republicans introduced a bill in 2007 that would prohibit reinstatement. Prominent Democrats stop any of these attempts and publicly say that they want the Doctrine returned. When liberals cannot compete with ideas, they resort to smearing or legislation to crush the opponents.

26. Obama would soften the laws on illegal immigration. It is no secret that he is against sealing the border and his socialized health plan would provide benefits for illegal immigrants. He supported legislation that would have granted legal status for children under 21 who would become U.S. citizens as long as they have lived here five years. He would also support in-state tuition rates for them also known as the “Dream Act” that failed in the Senate. He supported giving illegal aliens driver’s licenses.

27. Obama would socialize healthcare in America. This is a reason why he must not be allowed in the White House. This is one proposal that could not be undone. Once the government has taken over something as large and complex as the healthcare system, its new power role would not be diminished. You have heard the horror stories of healthcare in Canada and England. They are true. Google the stories and you will find the long wait times, untimely deaths, poor care, and patients having to take care in their own hands. The income of doctors would be limited and the shortage would increase even more so than now. Because health care is so costly, the alternative would be to ration it. McCain has a much better alternative by giving tax friendly ways for people to purchase their own health insurance. The “uninsured crisis” is not as it seems. 10 million are illegal immigrants, 15 million are eligible for Medicaid but don’t apply, 15 million adults whose children are eligible, and 10 million childless adults. http://www.newsmax.com/us/healthcare_illegals/2008/04/21/89656.html In fact, the number of uninsured has dropped. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/dems-downplay-report-showing-decline-in-number-of-uninsured/

28. Obama wants to hand out free entitlements at an unprecedented rate. This would effectively create government provided and influenced education from cradle to college graduation. His 0-5 plan would accomplish universal daycare. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#early-childhood Government elementary education is already free and now he wants to make that the case for college? This plan was taken directly from his website. “Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.” http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#higher-education Why should we stop there? Let’s provide free housing, cars, healthcare, and retirement for everyone. That way we can have a true cradle to grave society.

29. He would support radical Supreme Court justices. He voted against the appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He made a speech to Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007 saying “We’re at a crossroads right now in America—and we have to move this country forward. This election is not just about playing defense, it’s also about playing offense. It’s not just about defending what is, it’s about creating what might be in this country. And that’s what we’ve got to work on together. With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade and that is what is at stake in this election” Translation? Appoint radical leftists who legislate from the bench like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. There is a very good chance that the next president of the United States could select 3 Supreme Court Justices.

30. Obama is an active proponent of the Global Poverty Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_poverty_act act This bill is intended to force the United States to spend 0.7% of Gross Domestic Product to help lower global poverty. Over 13 years time, this would be over $845 billion dollars! You see, liberals are generous with other people’s money. They want to take your money and force you to send it overseas in addition to the billions that we currently spend. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405 But remember, Obama is a “citizen of the world” and is looking for ways to redistribute income. Obama himself has a half brother that lives in Africa on less than a dollar a month. I thought that money should be taken from the wealthy and redistributed to the poor? Obama’s income of over $4 million dollars last year would really help his brother out. The story can be read here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1047399/Barack-Obamas-half-brother-discovered-Kenya-living-dollar-month.html Why doesn’t he offer to help his family out? After all, he did say in his nomination acceptance speech that we should be our brother’s keeper. This theme seems to be consistent with the Joe Biden pick. What a stingy man! His recent released tax returns reflect this. In the last ten years, Biden earned over $2.2 million dollars. His claimed charitable donations amounted to about $3600. This would be the same as giving $2.00 a week to charity if you earned $200,000. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/12/will-media-report-bidens-miserly-charitable-donations They make quite the giving pair. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MrA2uG1Ees Their percentage of income that is given to charity is laughable.

31. He will do anything and say anything to become president. Just look at his past. In 1995, an Illinois state senator named Alice Palmer chose Barack Obama to be her successor. She had decided to run for a seat in Congress but was unexpectedly defeated. She decided to run for the senate after all. Instead of deferring to her, he decided to fight her and three others to get them forced off the ballot. He hired lawyer gunslingers to challenge each signature that was on a petition to get Palmer on the ballot. This was true hardcore Chicago politics at work. You can watch the whole story here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPQedyt10To He continually touts his experience as a community organizer. In many cases, “community organizing” has been used to stir up the “have nots” and to cause them to seize power from the “have’s.” Another method of class warfare which Obama talks about all the time on the campaign trail. You could also call it community rabble rousing. Saul Alinsky was a social revolutionary who espoused the use of stirring up the populace through tension eruptions. He wrote Rules for Radicals, http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75101 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky In fact, Alinsky’s son wrote a letter to the editor of a prominent newspaper saying what a good job Obama did after the example of his father. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/?s_campaign=8315

32. His Iran flip-flops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s05MKeM&feature=related The leader of Iran could be called Hitler, Jr. Obama did call Iran a tiny country and no serious threat. The President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to develop a nuclear program, denies the Holocaust existed, and calls for the dissolution of Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

33. His questionable support for Israel. While Obama sat on the board of the Woods Fund with Bill Ayers, the foundation made a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network. The co-founder is Rashid Khalidi, and he made very inflammatory anti-Israel comments. He held fundraisers for Obama and was a friend and dinner companion of the Obamas. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,5826085.story Later he became a professor at Columbia University known as Edward Said. Obama was photographed at an Arab community event in Chicago. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml This is only one of multiple connections Obama has had to people who hold anti-Israel views. He has flip-flopped on positions regarding Israel throughout the campaign. http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12903.htm One of the Obama campaign advisors, Joseph Cirincione, has said that Israel must give up its nukes. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=63031 Cirincione has been an outspoken critic of many Israeli actions and these are easy to find using google. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/obama_keeps_hiring_antiisraeli.html

34. Obama has close ties to Tony Rezko, the convicted slum lord in Chicago who took millions of taxpayer dollars to build low income housing that later folded under his management. Rezko was also involved in shady real estate deal with Obama. http://www.gop.com/ObamaRezkoShadyDeal/ In return, Obama directed millions of dollars in taxpayer money to help build housing projects that Rezko owned and managed. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27970

35. His radical associations are mind boggling. The list includes an unrepentant terrorist, convicted slum lord, anti-Semite, anti-Americans, communists, Islamic extremists, racists, and various other controversial figures. Just google these names with Obama’s name and you will find a wealth of information: Raila Odinga, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jerry Kellman, Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, just to name a few. You can just search these names with Obama and come up with your own research.

36. Obama has insinuated that McCain might “lose his bearings” while being President. However, for your amusement, I have assembled some of the many Obama/Biden gaffes that should give you endless humor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZqfcYch9Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=galtZF0nKYc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc

Additional Links for your personal research of Barack Obama: http://www.antiobama.net/anti-obama-websites.html http://www.ibdeditorial.com/series8.aspx http://nohussein.org/ http://www.obamanation.com http://dontvoteobama.net/ http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ http://www.gunbanobama.com/

Jerome Corsi, PH.D.,Obama Nation, New York, Threshold Editions, 2008

A Satirical Look at the Energy Crisis

2008-08-25T17:42:00.001-07:00

Many years ago a teenager named Jimmy Shell lived on a dairy farm located in the American Midwest. His father owned a large cattle operation that supplied the area with premium milk and also shipped it to neighboring states. The residents of the area enjoyed the quality and affordability of the milk. Jimmy loved working on the farm and planned to take it over when his father chose to retire. Mr. Shell raised Jimmy with good business sense and showed him the different aspects of running a business. At that time, the farm employed a dozen workers and had thousands of dairy cows. Mr. Shell had been in the business many years and wished for nothing more than for his son to take over and make the business even more successful. Competition from milk importing companies demanded a cutting edge business model and the aspiring young Jimmy would be just the one to enlarge and expand operations. Milk was then sold for $2.00 a gallon and Mr. Shell explained the concept of a profit margin to Jimmy. A profit margin simply was the amount of actual profit for every dollar of revenue that came in. It was very commonplace for most businesses to earn anywhere from 8% to 25% on every dollar that they took in. It was not important what the total revenues were, but how much the business was able to realize as net profit. Even though he was a young man, Jimmy clearly understood this concept and he would discover later just how hard this was for some to grasp. For every gallon of milk that the dairy farm sold, $1.00 went to expenses, 60 cents to taxes, and 40 cents went to profit. This ratio meant that the farm had a 20% profit margin. Even though annual earnings were over $1,500,000, the net profit was only $300,000. After paying himself a salary, Mr. Shell didn’t have a large amount left to expand operations with. He still had to pay his regular income taxes because he was one of those “evil rich people” who earned over $250,000. Thank goodness most people didn’t know how much he earned. You see, a lot of people who earned that amount of money were small business owners who had to file this business income on their personal taxes. Wealth envy is a powerful thing though. Many people thought that high income earners should be punished because they obviously did something wrong to earn that much. The rich kept getting richer because they kept doing the smart things what made them rich in the first place. Mr. Shell was a prime example of fulfilling the American dream. Because he was getting older, he felt that Jimmy would be just the one to get the business booming. Employees were treated well, customers loved the product, and everyone looked at Mr. Shell as a pillar of the community.
During the course of the next few years, Jimmy was able to successfully transition into his new position of operations owner. He immediately saw ways that the operation could be streamlined to produce more efficiently, but one problem loomed very quickly. Shell brand name milk was in increased demand and the supply was just not meeting the demand. He had two choices—either raise prices or increase supply. The herd of cattle that he owned was not getting younger and their output would eventually decrease. As a result, Jimmy bought additional dairy cows which increased the supply of milk. He did not have to raise actual prices and customers were relieved. The operation continued to grow and Jimmy decided to lower prices due to increased competition from nearby dairy operations. Everything flowed along smoothly until a local government problem emerged. A disillusioned politician had lost an important election and quickly faded from the public eye. To bolster his public image and to earn large sums of money, he created a documentary attempting to prove that the planet was warming as a result of carbon emissions. The film was based on computer models that disregarded the hard data that scientists presented to the contrary. Nonetheless, a mass hysteria developed in the typically uninformed segment of the population. They felt that emissions had to be reduced to meet the threat of global warming. A study released by a group of researchers “concluded” that methane gas emitted by animals contributed to the emissions greatly. Local government officials wanted to appear that they were doing something about this issue, so they came up with a comprehensive plan to convey to voters their brilliance in solving a problem. All area dairy farmers were summoned to a meeting to be informed of a new law that was passed. The legislation was called “The Cattle Emission Cap and Trade Act.” New emission standards were set that the dairy farmers had to adhere to or be penalized with heavy fines. Large operators could buy emission credits from smaller farmers to make the playing field even. Jimmy’s operation was directly affected due to its size. Since his profit margin had enough of a span, he was able to lessen his margin and absorb the new expense without raising actual prices. Because revenue still rose due to volume, Jimmy poured a large portion of this back into his business. He was able to hire new employees and create more economic growth in the community. His operation eventually became so large that he purchased an even larger herd of cattle but still needed outside capital to bolster the investment. His operation officially became Shell, Inc. and he took the company public. Many shareholders flocked in to buy shares of this wonderful business. Investment managers made large investments of pension and retirement funds because of the potential return. Jimmy was finally able to purchase more dairy cattle and increase his milk output. His profit margin was the same but due to increased volume, his profits surged. Teachers, auto workers, blue and white collar employees who had their retirement accounts and investments invested in Shell, Inc. were very pleased to see their portfolios grow. Jimmy Shell became a well respected businessman and many admired what he had done with the now very successful company.
Success always runs into some trouble though. The issue of carbon emissions was a continued irritant as environmentalists protested the methane gas produced by the farm. They put increasing pressure on government regulators to do something about it. The best method introduced to accomplish this came in the form of soy milk, also known as soythenal. Soybeans were raised heavily in that area of the country. Its primary use was for animal grain. It was also used for people’s food products. The negative side of soy milk was that its benefits did not outweigh the cost. It took large volumes of soybeans to produce a single gallon of soy milk. The emissions caused by producing all the extra soybeans did more damage to the environment that regular cows possibly could have. Most politicians and environmental Marxists were nominally educated and did not understand this basic principle. The cost simply outweighed any potential benefit. Nevertheless, legislation was passed to require regular milk to consist of 10% soymilk. The idea was supposed to lessen demand for regular milk, thereby lowering the amount of carbon emissions put out by dairy cattle. However, farmers continued to sell soybeans to local food and grain companies because they could earn more profit that way. To increase the production of soymilk, congressmen quickly passed legislation to subsidize the soybean farmers. They would be given taxpayer money in return for selling their soybeans to soy milk producers. In fact, farming soybeans became quite lucrative. Through government funding, raising soybeans for soy milk was worth more than for conventional growth. Many farmers signed up for the plan and harvested their soybeans. Sadly, this adversely affected the food and grain markets. Food and grain prices skyrocketed because of decreased supply. The demand for regular milk did not decrease as a result of the program. In fact, the booming population of the area was not factored in previously. Demand increased while supply decreased. Jimmy had one of two choices—either increase output or raise prices. Because of the size of his business, purchasing more cattle was always an option. Or was it? The environmentalists were not pleased that demand did not decrease for milk. They believed that it was a moral crime to not reduce carbon emissions more drastically. In the meantime, a group of scientists had conducted a study discovering that methane gas had no impact on global warming. In spite of this, radical extremists once again turned to legislation when they could not prove their agenda scientifically.
Perhaps the most extreme conservation group was an organization called P.E.T.A. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.) Through their internal “research,” they came to the conclusion that milking a cow was cruel and should be classified as torture. Although highly controversial, this new belief permeated the thinking of many activists and new actions were demanded. Politicians were not too thrilled about enacting new laws regarding this, but extremists groups were vital donors to their campaigns and they were not about to lose that support. They had to ride the fence because farmers would be especially outraged. Bowing to pressure, legislators passed a law that allowed the existing milking of dairy cows, but prohibited any additional cows to be milked. Activists were convinced that regular milk would become a thing of the past and soy milk would be an alternative use that would be much more environmentally friendly. The Dairy Farmers Association appealed this ruling but got nowhere. Their production would now be capped while demand continued to slowly increase. At first, Jimmy’s operation was able to absorb the cost impact by cutting expenses. He was forced to downsize his workforce and let a few of his employees go. This alone would not be a long term fix. By doing a cost analysis, he discovered that his milk prices had to be raised $1.00 per gallon to keep up with his ever increasing expenses and in response to increased demand. Soybean prices continued to rise and grain costs along with them. His profit margin was actually lowered to about 12 cents per gallon. Because most consumers were government educated, their grasp of economics was very limited. They just knew that all of a sudden they were paying a lot more for milk than they had in the past. The finger of blame needed to be pointed somewhere, so who would be most likely to suffer the blame? Jimmy Shell. You see, some reporters looked at the public financial records of Shell, Inc. and saw that he was making millions of dollars in profit every year. People were very upset in hearing this and didn’t think it was fair that they should pay a high price for milk while Big Milk was making millions. No one paid attention to the fact that Shell Inc. was making only 12 cents a gallon for all of its work while the government collected about 70 cents a gallon in taxes. The government had nothing to do with milk production, but was ready and willing to collect tax revenue and regulate the milk companies. In fact, these taxes were in addition to the income tax that was paid by Shell, Inc. The company paid millions in taxes every year but consumers thought that it was getting off the hook completely. They would have even paid more, but there was an existing tax break that had enabled the producers to expand their business and provide more jobs to people. The stark fact was that people became so emotional about the issue that they felt the milk companies should not be allowed to make profit. This was the first time in American history that public attitude demanded that a business making a product was expected to find an alternate to drive itself out of business. Instead of trying to figure out how this problem got started, people became increasingly outraged that Shell, Inc. was making “excessive” profits on the back of the middle class. In everyday conversations, people only had to talk about milk profits and they somehow sounded smart.
This was the same public that would normally look favorably upon hard work and success. If a little boy were to sell lemonade at a little stand and make 50 cents a cup, he would be admired for his work and creativity. If that same young man opened a large lemonade distributing company selling cans at 50 cents apiece but earned billions in profits, this would just be too much. How dare someone earn “too much” money while working people bought that product? People looked at only the amount of money made and not the actual margin of profit. They were willing to spend $2.00 on a bottle of water and become outraged over $4.00 a gallon milk. Forget the price of a latte at Starbucks. Cosmetic companies could earn over 20% profit margin and no one cared. Big milk was such an easy issue to demagogue so politicians used it whenever possible.
There seemed to be no real solution for this problem. However, this time was different. This was an election year. Because many politicians lacked basic knowledge of economics, so-called “solutions” were suggested to fix this problem. A section dealing with supply and demand in an economics textbook would have yielded valuable information. Supply needed to be increased to bring down prices. The suggestions were quite comical to observe. A leading senator from the Northeast stated that neighboring importers of milk should be forced to produce more milk from their decreasing supplies or face economic sanctions. Why not allow milk companies to obtain more dairy cattle to increase the milk supply? Liberal politicians countered that the dairy farmers had enough cattle already but didn’t get them to produce enough. This was laughable because any normal person would have known that some cows just don’t produce like others. Some cows had abnormalities which caused them to produce milk that was unusable. Two presidential candidates introduced the concept of a “windfall profits tax” on the milk companies. Since when did the government decide what a private business should make in profit? A couple presidential candidates were very enthusiastic about the idea because the mindless masses would love it. What was not told was that this had already been tried. Just a few decades earlier, a president had decided to impose a windfall profits tax that actually lowered government revenue and drove prices higher than before. A Midwest senator among others loved to give Congressional floor speeches demonizing the milk companies and how much profit they earned. She and the presidential candidate she endorsed spouted off numbers regarding how much the milk companies earned per minute. Due to their size, it was no wonder that milk companies earned massive amounts of money. The presidential candidate tried to compare what they made per minute to what a single employee could earn in a year. Since this candidate’s personal income in the previous year was over $4 million dollars and the average income of an American was $45,000, wouldn’t it then have made sense to impose a “windfall income tax” on his earnings? He was a politician so he was exempt from wealth envy. That is why the speaker of the House could be worth over $50 million and no one blinked an eye. These politicians were content to direct anger at private business instead. Society had shifted from embracing free markets and competition to try increased government regulation. This had never worked in other countries but people wanted to try it here. This crisis was reached by design. The global warming “threat” was merely a propaganda vehicle for anti-capitalist groups who wanted to destroy the economy. This would force people to rely on the government. Many environmental groups consisted of members who were once a part of or had sympathies to socialist groups. The effect of cows and the so called carbon producers were not a factor at all. These activist groups just wanted to create a disdain for profit and a free market economy.
Public sentiment against Big Milk continued to rise until it seemed at almost a breaking point. Politicians previously did nothing about the milk shortage but now stuck their fingers in the air and figured out that the issue was very heavy on the minds of voters. Rather than look for ways to increase the supply, they summoned Jimmy Shell to a congressional hearing. Jimmy had already been to dozens of these hearings and it was always the same old story. Congressmen would berate him for charging so much for milk “on the backs of working people.” These hearing were broadcasted on cable news and voters saw images of milk company owners raked over the coals for seemingly gouging consumers. One such senator who was the senate whip asked, “How could you do this to us? You are making millions of dollars in profits while low income people suffer.” This same senator proudly posted this video on his website as did other senators. What was not shown was the response of Jimmy and other milk producers. They informed Congress that prices would go even higher if they were not allowed to expand production. In response, a senator from the West Coast suggested that a government sociali……she meant “government takeover” would be the answer instead. This suggestion seemed so outrageous because every program that the government ran including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other entitlement programs were either a disaster or teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. This would go against logic but then again, uneducated voters wouldn’t know the difference anyway.
Since this was an election year, presidential candidates joined in too. They promised all kinds of fixes that would end this problem. The majority party in Congress had promised two years earlier that they would lower prices that seemed high at the time. Rather, under their leadership, the price of milk per gallon was on track to double in the two years time that they were in power. They instead blamed the sitting president because it was a well known fact that he caused bridge collapses and natural disasters. Even though he pushed for milk expansion, the other party could not allow that to happen. They wanted their candidate to win so badly, they could not afford for the economy to improve and prices to decrease while he was still in office. Promises were made that milk prices would be lowered under a new president, but no one seemed to pay attention to their disastrous track record that had the opposite effect. Maybe that is why an “unpopular” president had an approval rating of about 30% and the Congress sunk to a new low of 9%. When two prominent candidates emerged for the majority party, each had their own ideas on how to solve the problem. Both of them loved to vilify the milk producers as causing the problem, but they had slightly different approaches. One candidate suggested that Jimmy Shell and other should have their profits confiscated from them and be used to develop alternate sources of milk. Her idea coincided with the socialist views that her party held. The other candidate proposed the failed idea of a windfall profits tax. He wanted to confiscate that money from the milk companies and redistribute it to the “working people.” We know from history how that went the other time it was tried. A new government agency would be created to determine what amount was too much for milk companies to earn. Who was so naïve to believe that this agency would stop there? There were companies that had much higher profit margins, but were less easy to demagogue. Internet search engines, cosmetics, and some other service industries made a much higher profit margin but that didn’t matter because people didn’t care. It only mattered that prices were higher on things that they needed. They thought that somehow taking the profits of a company would magically cause prices to drop. This same presidential candidate was also emphatic that expanded milk supply had to be hindered at all costs. Instead, he watched companies begin to fail and unemployment rise as many industries were forced to raise prices and lay off employees to cut costs. This was irrelevant though because naturally the sitting president would get all the blame, even though it was the inaction of the Congress to allow milk expansion. He used popular catch phrases and slogans to convince people that prices would magically drop if only he were elected. Under his administration, milk companies would be investigated for gouging poor consumers. His best alternative? Make sure that all milk transport trucks had properly inflated tires. What a presidential and ingenious way to solve the problem.
Jimmy Shell watched all of this unfold and the future looked very bleak for him. It was obvious to see that he would be eventually regulated out of his business. He saw growing trends that reinforced his fears. In a neighboring country, citizens had adopted the carbon emission hysteria and took steps to reduce their contribution to it. Small air tanks were created that cows were required to wear on their backs. This would collect the methane gas emitted by cows. As usual, all those ridiculous ideas cost a lot of money and milk prices there continued to skyrocket also. That would eventually come true for Jimmy someday. He was already battling the proposal of a politician that introduced legislation mandating a national cow registry. Every cow would have to be tagged and registered in a national I.D. system so the government would make sure dairy farmers were not obtaining milk from cows illegally. Any person with common sense would have realized that eventually the entire milk producing population would die off. All these cumulative problems produced a result which the average citizen did not expect. Government intervention was supposed to punish Big Milk and lower prices for everyone. Forcing producers to cut emission had a heavy financial toll on businesses to comply with all the regulations. Soythenal proved to be a disastrous alternative. The amount of carbon emissions produced actually was a larger number than to produce the same amount of regular milk. Because such a high volume of soybeans were used to produce soythenal, food supply was affected. Prices skyrocketed and the very people that were supposed to be helped were the most impacted. Regular milk that used to be an inexpensive necessity turned into an expensive luxury. People became outraged and demanded action from their elected leaders. The majority party insisted that people needed to drink less milk and buy soy milk as an alternative. Since pure soythenal was at least three times more expensive than regular milk, consumers had to bite the bullet and use their money for this. Politicians who were supplied milk without charge through their benefits package really cared less that the economy suffered. The more important issue to them was the fact that carbon emissions were reduced, even if by a small percentage. Or was this something to be proud of? As a result of objective research, over 20,000 scientists concluded that the earth was not warming. Research previously done on computer models were not an accurate indicator. In fact, in the previous entire century, the Earth had warmed one degree. And none of the alarmists had any idea what the ideal temperature of the planet should be. Just 30 years earlier, global cooling was the environmental threat
A proposal had been introduced 15 years earlier that would have helped immensely to alleviate the problem. The sitting president vetoed that legislation. It would have expanded domestic dairy expansion and currently produced millions of gallons of milk per day. Since this was now such a pressing issue, the minority party tried to bring this up again. The majority quickly halted the idea, citing erroneous and idiotic reasons for doing so. The leadership contended that new dairy herds would not produce enough milk to lower the prices. The Senate Majority Leader actually said that milk would “make us sick” and eventually should be eliminated. One old veteran senator from the East Coast vehemently resisted the prospect of building a soythenal plant near the ocean bay outside of his home but wanted mass amounts of them built elsewhere. They needed to be where he couldn’t see them. He was an elitist who felt others should have to bear the load instead. It seemed ironic that at the same time they were demanding that importers should raise its milk production. There were enough cattle here that could have produced far more than those importers combined.
It did not matter to the environmental alarmists that the economy suffered. Manufacturers that made products containing milk were hit hard. They were forced to cut costs and raise prices. Inflation was rising because milk was the life blood of the economy. Many companies laid off employees. These employees came to the stark realization that the politicians had hoodwinked them. The voices of the people demanding that milk production restrictions be lifted were not heard. The leadership’s countered that there was no way to milk their way out of the problem. They wanted to instead use some of the critical reserves that were set back by the government in case of a crisis. The House Leader continually demanded supply be released from the critical reserves but did not allow any voting on expanded milk production. She called opposition congressmen “handmaidens of the milk companies.” She was trying to save the planet of course. To suggest that more milk supply should be put into the market but at the same time hindering production at home seemed ludicrous. Their other answer was to encourage soythenal use. Many people wisely realized that a milk distribution plant had not been built in over 30 years. Also, foreign countries were erecting dairy farms a short distance away from the country’s borders. Why would the people be forced to buy milk from countries who disliked them? Was it to satisfy the disillusion of a small segment of the population? Could it be possible that letting capitalism and the free market’s brilliant minds come up with a way to solve this problem? No, because politicians and the government always know better. Forcing people to rely on alternatives that were not currently viable through cost and technology yet was premature. Many party leaders had never run a business in their lives or had to make difficult business decisions. Yet the very same people who were so unhappy with their government were considering the possibility of electing a president whose best accomplishment was that of a community activist? Big problems called for big solutions. In this time of important consequences, the Congress decided to go home on a five week vacation. The party leader felt it was more important to hawk her book which almost no one bought. It actually sold enough copies to be slightly behind the book, Watching Paint Dry. The leadership just wanted to buy time until they could have all the power and increase government power and regulation. Increasing the role of government seemed beyond the pale. Many times people dislike situations but are unwilling to do anything about them. Why would a citizen gripe about the current state of affairs but never think to contact their elected representative and voice their opinion? Is it possible that through situations such as these that a nation can become a nanny state? The very government who has a horrible track record of solving problems is then expected to solve bigger ones? Perhaps the new biggest oxymoron should be, “We’re the government, and we’re here to help.”

“Windfall Profits Tax?”

2008-08-25T17:39:00.001-07:00

The staff of Senator Claire McCaskill’s office informed me that she supports a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Since when have we accepted the socialist concept of confiscating profits from private business? When the oil companies earn roughly 9 cents per gallon and state/federal taxes can be up to 70 cents, who is really making “windfall profits?” Most uneducated voters buy into this because they don’t know the difference between a profit and a profit margin. Pension funds and retirement plans that have holdings in oil companies would go down as a result. The media doesn’t tell you that the Exxon Mobil worldwide tax bill was $107 billion in 2007. The Nancy Pelosi led Congress left on a five week vacation refusing to allow a vote on domestic drilling. Barack Obama recently said that Exxon Mobil makes the same amount in 30 seconds that a typical Ohio worker makes in a year. With this logic, I propose that we impose a windfall profits tax on Obama. If the average worker in American earns $45,000, the 2007 $4.2 million income that he enjoyed should have a windfall tax correct? I’m sure everyone is busy doing Obama’s alternate proposal to drilling—inflating their tires.

So Is Everyone Excited About the Rebate Checks?

2008-04-01T18:50:00.001-07:00

Everyone seems to be really excited to get their tax rebate checks from the government in the next couple months. The goal of the economic stimulus package is for consumers to spend this money on goods and services to stimulate the economy in the short term. Part of me wants to believe that this is a good thing and that this will benefit all involved. We could look at this as a tax rebate on the high taxes that we currently pay to the federal government. However, could there be some negative effects that overshadow the money itself?

Let us not forget that studies typically show that tax rebates have minimal effects on the economy. Current surveys show that many people plan to pay down their debts as opposed to spending it on consumer products. In times of economic uncertainty, it is always good to have little or no debt. Contrary to what the news media will say in this political year, we are not in a recession. There has been a slowdown in growth, but not recession. I will take the check gladly and view it as a refund of taxes I have paid. But should we stand back and think about a few things before being all giddy about getting some money from Uncle Sam?

Whenever the government gives money to someone, it took the cash from someone else. The government has no income. It merely collects and spends. In spite of this, have we come to the point that we actually believe that the government should bail us out every time there seems to be economic trouble? The housing crisis is not affecting people who did things the right way. The majority of homeowners who are being foreclosed on are those who should have never signed up for the loans in the first place. They agreed to take on adjustable rates and subprime terms that they should have never been able to get. I feel that people of the younger generation feel they have to get in their first years what their parents may have taken a lifetime to accumulate. The current economic instability is a result of lenders and borrowers going way over the edge. You can only buy on credit for so long. People who have minimal or no debt are not feeling the pinch at this time. We have been fed the ridiculous idea that we should leverage ourselves up to the eyeballs in debt to get ahead. In slower times, the house of cards comes crashing down. Let me give one example: Just imagine for a moment if you saved up money and paid cash for your car. Instead of trading in your car all the time and often being upside down, what if you just paid for it? The most recent statistic I have seen states that the average car payment in America averages $464.00 a month. If you invested that payment every month through a normal working lifetime of age 25-65, you would retire with $5.4 million dollars. Hope you like your car!

It was amazing to me to watch how quickly politicians from both sides of the aisle lining up to hand out these checks to taxpayers with very little wrangling. It seemed to be an admission that money in the hands of people is always better than in the hands of the government. Then they decided that families earning over $150,000 should not get a rebate. Before you get all puffed up and say, “Those people don’t need the money,” think about this for a moment: We train our kids from a young age that they need to go to college and work as hard as they can to become successful. If they work hard and achieve the goal of a high income, then they will be labeled as one of “those evil rich people.” They will get to pay the majority of income taxes while the “working poor” get their money in the form of rebates and earned income tax credits. In 2002, the bottom 50% of income earners only paid 3.6% of the overall tax load. Are we as a society slowly justifying the socialist concept of income redistribution?

Most voters are too ignorant to actually realize what they pay in taxes. Next time you get paid, look at your pay stub and see how much is being withheld. Who actually looks? We just look at the net pay and could care less how much is taken out anyway. Instead of being pacified, why don’t we become energized? Putting aside any dislikes of President Bush, you have to realize that he implemented some of the most sweeping tax seen in quite some time. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both vowed to let these tax cuts expire. They say that we would only be “rolling back” tax cuts on the rich. According to studies done by the Heritage Foundation, the hard facts may make you cringe. What you are not told is that the death tax would increase taxes by an estimated $91 billion. Over 100 million taxpayers will be hit with an average hike of $1,716. The marriage penalty would come back and cause over 44 million married couples to pay an average of $1,480 more. 17 million seniors would have an average tax increase of $2,034. Let’s start holding our politicians accountable and put money back in the pockets of those who will best help the economy the most—the American taxpayer.

Marvin

www.youtube.com/truthforamerica

Are We Currently in a "Recession?"

2008-03-25T19:22:00.001-07:00

If you listen to today’s new media, you could easily come away believing that we are in the worst economy that we have seen in a long time and that a depression is on its way. Before I delve into the factors causing this bump in the road of our financial system, the true definition of a recession must be defined. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth in GDP.[1] This does not mean the economy just needs to slow down. Rather, it has to actually retreat. One estimate indicated that the four quarters of 2007 averaged 2.5% with the last quarter at 0.6%.[2] While this is not a glowing rate of growth, it is certainly not in the negative. Many people are under the illusion that higher food and gas prices automatically equal a depression. If consumers are feeling the pinch of price increases, is this a sign that our economy is faltering? Let us examine several factors that are contributing to some of the obvious signs that people first look at. Perhaps the most obvious problem that people hear about the most is the “mortgage crisis.” Many thousands of people are losing their homes through foreclosure because of adjustable rates translating into higher payments. The fallacy of this perception is that it is not across the board. Conventional loans and traditional mortgages are not suffering during this crisis. Frankly, the people who are losing their homes borrowed in the subprime market and were not eligible to quality for a good loan. Subprime loans are for people who have bad credit, minimal or no down payment, and questionable ability to repay. Many of these loans had adjusting rates that the borrowers were not aware of or not prepared to pay. Some believe that the government somehow has a responsibility to bail out these people because there is a popular belief existing that predatory lenders are to blame. While there may be instances where lenders misrepresented some terms of the loan, the fact is that people have to take responsibility for their own decisions. A signature on a line of a contract guarantees that the signer agrees to the terms and conditions contained therein. Decades ago, these people would not have qualified for conventional loans. Consumer advocacy groups and outspoken critics rallied behind the cause that lenders should be forced to extend credit to people who could not normally afford a home. One of the most well-known cases during that time was Michael Lomax.[3] Working for Fulton County in Georgia, Lomax was able to publicize his case of a loan rejection. The public incorrectly summarized that he was rejected based on the color of his skin. In reality, it was later discovered that his debt to income ratio was too high and he would not qualify for more loans. There emerged a sympathy toward people of questionable ability to pay and lenders were pushed and sometimes forced to extend money to less than savvy borrowers. We are now seeing the results of this overextension. Banks have massive amounts of money that are now bad debts on their books. I personally believe that people should have to qualify for conventional loans before they can purchase a home. If they cannot qualify, there are obvious indicators that they will not be able to pay. The market is now adjusting for this and we will have to live with the consequences. Excessive accumulation of debt is a contributing factor to harder economic times. The younger generation especially does not seem to appreciate the idea of paying for things up front. The most powerful wealth building tool is an income. When the majority of it is going out in payments every month that include interest, there is not much left over to save and invest. Although the actual number has been debated by different financial analysts, the average credit card balance owed by an American family is over $8,000.[4]Debt is often used as a leverage to accomplish bigger things. However, the problem is that we want everything right away and really big. What our parents have taken decades to accumulate we want instantly. To finance these purchases, options such as 60 months-same-as-cash, rent-to-own, credit cards, and other avenues are used. Having a car payment is a way of life and there seems to be no alternative. Just imagine for a moment being ahead and not having to worry about payments on revolving credit. The interest saved and being a step ahead allows great freedom to save and invest for the future. If you were to take $400.00 a month car payment and instead invest it for 40 years, you would have $2,500,000.00 at retirement! Hope you like the car! Until we learn to invest for the future, we will play catch up paying high interest rates on things such as credit cards. We have a whole different mindset than in days gone by. In 1910 the Sears catalog stated, "Buying on Credit is Folly." J. C. Penney department stores make millions annually on their plastic, but their founder was nicknamed James "Cash" Penney because he detested the use of debt.[5] In times of economic uncertainty, it is best to maintain control and power over finances. The best way is to minimize the amount of money owed to others. The best basis of building wealth is one’s income. As the popular saying goes, “When your outgo exceeds your income, then your upkeep will be your downfall.” While debt is often used to try and get ahead in life, it must be kept in mind that it can also be a great risk to the personal finances. The decline of the dollar has made many people uneasy and to doubt the reliability of the financial standard by which we measure against. Gold is at record highs and many people believe that it is the best investment to make at this time. However, gold is a very volatile investment and could be a costly mistake if it is purchased at high prices. On average, mutual funds and stocks have performed much better over the long run.[6] As with any investment strategy, it is always best to have a diverse portfolio. Just say the word Enron and this rings true. Many employees who worked for the company put all of their retirement savings into Enron stock and saw their savings depleted almost overnight. The value of the dollar is something that has to be watched closely. No doubt if other currencies become more valuable than ours, people have a right to be somewhat concerned. With this downside, there is also a benefit. Exports are doing very well because other countries are eager to purchase products at lower prices. This type of balancing act can be fragile and the dollar must be a reliable and constant currency to help growth. Inflation and higher prices seem to always plague consumers and this year is no different. With gas being at record highs, many drivers are cutting down on their consumption. Travel and freight costs are increased by the surge of oil prices. As a result, goods and services end up costing more for the consumer. As mentioned earlier, higher prices do not equal recession, but they do put a pinch on the wallet. For a commuter that drives many miles every day to work, the cumulative amounts of gasoline purchased can be translated into a higher gas bill. Food prices increase because the cost to transport it goes up. However, there must be a balanced perspective in all of this. Increased prices do not usually break a budget overall. Rather, cutbacks are usually made in other areas to relieve the pressure. There is another area of the economy that is usually not addressed and is perhaps one of the most important factors in discouraging growth. Our economy has a good track record of growth but it cannot always go up forever. There are weights that threaten to drag down the economy if they are not revised. Our current tax code is very discouraging to enterprising individuals and businesses. We have a progressive income tax system in America that needs to be reformed. It is alarming to note that a heavy progressive income tax is the second plank of Marxism.[7] While some believe that rich individuals should pay a much higher share, they don’t realize what a large segment of the economy is fueled by. Through multiple studies, it has been proven that lower taxes benefit everyone.[8] People who are wealthy seek more ways to hide their income when they have to pay high tax rates. Offshore accounts hold billions of dollars that are chased away from our coasts by our tax code. A little known fact is that the bottom 50% of income earners pay a fraction of the total tax load. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite. [9] Politicians preach that the middle class pay too much in taxes and that the load should be shifted away from them. This all sounds good but it fuels the unnecessary fires of class warfare. Another argument that is used is rhetoric against big corporations. Somehow many Americans have a bad perception of corporations. They believe that corporations are out to hurt the middle class by taking advantage of workers. There would seem to be no better alternative than to tax them at higher rates. What is not realized is that corporations do not pay taxes. Readers may think that this is an outrageous and erroneous statement. I will assert again that corporations do not truly pay taxes. Whenever their tax rates are increased, they simply pass it on to the consumer. This is known as embedded taxes. By demonizing the rich, politicians appeal to the majority of the poor class and gain many votes. Perhaps the most radical and most researched tax proposal right now is known as the FairTax. The FairTax is a national sales tax that would replace all income tax with a 23% consumption tax. This would also eliminate embedded taxes and prices would immediately go down on products sold. Until we have a tax system that rewards hard work and encourages success, we will slowly drift toward the system of collectivism. So what steps have or will be taken to correct this slowdown? The Federal Reserve has continually slashed interest rates to alleviate pressure in the credit markets. Freeing up more money will help but can also bring about the threat of inflation. When the consumer confidence in the economy got somewhat shaky, the politicians came up with a seemingly brilliant plan to send out stimulus checks to taxpayers. This is supposed to spur consumer spending and shore up the economy. However, there seems to be a trend that people are more likely to pay off debt or put in savings. It is amazing to see how politicians who normally would not allow any tax cuts to pass joined rank in file to hand out rebate checks. This makes you wonder if deep down politicians believe that money in the pockets of the consumer does more to spur economic growth than in the hands of the government. The government spent over $40 million to mail out notification letters that the checks will be coming. This was a prime example of bureaucracy wasting our tax dollars. The perception of this rebate was that the government was being nice to taxpayers and giving them some money. The fact is that this was the taxpayer’s money in the first place! The only money that the government gets is money taken from taxpayers. And who decided that people earning over $100,000 were exempt from getting checks? Does this send a message to the younger generation that if you do well then you should be punished? This goes back to the flawed belief that wealthy people should be held more responsible for becoming successful. We encourage our children to get a good education so that they can get good jobs. Once they do, they can then look forward to being portrayed as one of those evil rich people. We can surmise that economies cannot always go upward. There will be times of market correction and we are seeing that currently. In a nutshell, the case can be made that our current problems stem from businesses and individuals over extending themselves and financing more than they had the ability to pay. If the government steps in and does too much, it will encourage future dependence when we come into hard times. It must be remembered that people who are smart and have their financial house in order do not worry as much during times such as this. Personal responsibility must be taken and smart decisions made to insure that our economy continues to be the dominant one in the world.

Marvin

www.youtube.com/truthforamerica
www.blogtalkradio.com/truth4amer

[1] http://economics.about.com/od/economicsglossary/g/recession.htm [2] http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/fedviews/index.html [3] http://powerreporting.com/color/1b.html [4] http://ask.yahoo.com/20040209.html [5] http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/index.cfm?intContentID=4916 [6] http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/askdave/?intContentId=6240 [7] http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html [8] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443.cfm [9] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/774663/posts

Class Warfare

2008-03-09T15:00:00.000-07:00

“Class Warfare in America” Class warfare is an issue that most people don’t think about on an everyday basis. Instead, it is something that is steadily becoming prevalent in our society whether we like it or not. Often people think of class warfare only existing centuries ago in European countries and possibly in reference to caste systems. The opposite is true. An ideology can creep in unawares and change a whole society’s way of thinking. There is a lot of misinformation out there at the public’s disposal that has to be really looked at twice before it is taken at face value. As Adolph Hitler said, “If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough the people will believe it.” Sadly, we are becoming engaged in the problem of class warfare without knowing what devastating results it can have. As defined by (Wikipedia): Class conflict, or class war, is both the friction that accompanies social relationships between members or groups of different social classes and the underlying tensions or antagonisms which exist in society due to conflicting interests that arise from different social positions. As you drive down the street of a rich neighborhood, do you automatically think negative thoughts of those that live there? Do you find yourself suddenly believing that wealthy person obviously obtained their riches by ill gotten gain? If you drive through a bad section of town, do you look at people with disdain because they are poor? Let us put to rest some common misconceptions. The majority of rich people obtained their position in life because they worked hard and achieved their dreams. There are always those that got their money through less than legitimate ways. On the other hand, just because someone is poor, it does not mean that they cannot help their status. There is one point that should be made about the term “poor.” Sir Richard Burton said, “Broke is a temporary condition, poor is a state of mind.” This also brings up the issue of contentment. Some of the happiest people in the world have the least amount of money. It is all in the perspective. A man may have a good wife and family and feel like he is very wealthy. There must not be resentment toward other people based on their financial status. Usually class warfare is a resentment or jealousy towards people of another monetary class. What is the agenda or purpose of those who wish to use class warfare for their own gain? There are a variety of reasons that this issue would be exploited especially through propaganda. Perhaps the most common reason that class warfare is used is through politics. Politicians know how to push the buttons of their voters and sometimes play them right into their hands. Sadly, many people do not know the true motivation and make decisions without knowing the true impact. It has been said that ignorance is the most expensive commodity in America. Voters often vote on a whim or campaign speech without knowing facts about an issue. If a legislator wishes to raise taxes, he will often tell the lower class voting block that the rich do not pay their fair share and they should pay more. In reality, the rich often are paying the majority anyway but it is never enough to satisfy those on the lower income scale. The same rich people that use their profits to grow their businesses and hire more people will seek to shelter their money, thereby hurting the same people that wished ill will on them in the first place. The people on the bottom end of the income scale need to do some research before making decisions that are fueled by public sentiment. The “majority rules” is not always a good thing. Elections and nominations have been decided through misinformation. Poverty is usually the focal point of this class struggle. America is the most generous nation in the world and it is hard for people to have any callous feelings against the underprivileged. Giving has increased on a national scale every year and charities have never done better. We assist third world countries trying to fight poverty. Jesus said, “For the poor always ye have with you. (John 12:8) Although there are segments of the population that are truly poor, the facts point out that the poor don’t have it as bad as often portrayed. Having personally visited a third world country, I can attest that I have never seen a situation in America that compared to some of the living conditions I saw in Mexico. There was a family that wished to make me a special meal that they literally saved weeks of wages to pay for. America has the highest standard of living in the world. Sometimes the definition of hardship to us is not eating out at a restaurant for a week. As Americans, the poor can still consider themselves fortunate by many standards. Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) (Rector) Our supermarkets have huge food selections and we can literally almost anything we want. We have a far contrast from the Soviet bread lines that we read so much about. We currently do not have lines of cars waiting to get gasoline. Food rationing is not something that we have to worry about. The poor have access to emergency healthcare, shelter, and food if they are truly needy. Even the homeless who stand on a street corner have the opportunity to make a better life. I can remember an instance from personal experience that demonstrated this. While driving in Oklahoma City, I would regularly drive by a homeless man on the same street corner. On one occasion, the light turned red and my care was almost even with his vantage point. He asked me for some cash and I pointed out that an employer was hiring across the street from him. His short lived excitement turned into a sigh of disgust when he saw that it was a fast food restaurant. It did not seem to me that he was on his last rope if he wasn’t willing to look for gainful employment. Even the most underprivileged have opportunities to make a better life for themselves. America has social safety nets in place for those who are disadvantaged. The wealthy in America are often mischaracterized as evil people simply because they are rich. People need to realize that rich people usually did smart things to obtain their status. In America, the sky is the limit to one’s dreams and almost anything is possible barring physical or mental handicap. In your mind, think of a wealthy person that you know personally. Did that person get their riches through an honest means? Most likely they worked hard, invested resources, and saved money to reach the point that they have. According to research done of American millionaires, approximately 90% of them are first generation wealthy. 91% never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business. (Stanley 16) The opportunities are unlimited for Americans to expand their education, work hard, and grow businesses. Whether we like it or not, our society is moving towards income redistribution. The animosity towards wealthy people could also be called class envy. Let’s be frank here. Think of a rich person who is driving their brand new Mercedes Benz on their way to a private vacation home. There is a little jealously that wells up inside most of us that wishes we could have that status. That same person is paying a large amount of taxes but we feel that the police power of the government should be used to take his money and give it to us. As soon as a politician speaks to a crowd of poor people promising to “stick it to the rich,” voters come out in droves to put that person into office. There are segments that still believe that socialism is good by nature. Liberal ideologues continue to push for a collectivism where everyone is one big happy family and the wealth should be shared evenly. We have seen the results of these types of systems. Russia is a prime example. If you want a prime example of extreme poverty and socialism, look at foreign countries that have failed economically. Taking money from one person and giving it to another who has neither earned nor appreciated it is socialism. This is a socialist system in nature and has never worked. It has once been said, “If you took all the money in the world and spread it out evenly, within ten years it would be in the original hands.” There is an underlying principle here that must be remembered. What motivates you to get up and go to work every day? Is it the desire to achieve and obtain a better position in life? If everything is on an equal playing field, what is the point of trying to succeed? If you are punished more harshly as you earn more money, what is the message that we are sending to our children? Work hard, be successful, and earn more so that you can have it taken from you and given to those who have no desire to achieve. Instead, we should have admiration for those who have succeeded and fulfilled their dreams. So what steps have been taken to help those who do not make much money? There have been attempts to help the poor by raising the minimum wage. Politicians cater to their constituents and promise to raise the working wage and help low income workers. This all sounds well and good but there are unintended consequences that often do not benefit the very people that they are trying to help. Government mandated wage hikes imposed on private businesses artificially increase labor costs, which unfairly harm small businesses. Because businesses have to allocate more capital to labor costs, they not only cut jobs, but often pass onto the consumer the mandated government cost increases. Increased labor costs lead to higher prices for consumers, decreasing purchasing power overall. Higher costs of goods and services, which result from government imposed “living wages,” only hurt those with lower incomes or those living on fixed incomes. (Jackson, 74-75) Every time the government increases its role in the private sector, a segment of the economy suffers. Look at programs designed to help that have failed because of the mishandling by government. Social Security is an extremely liquid pool that is estimated to fail by 2040. Medicare is going bankrupt because government bureaucracy cannot run the system as efficiently as the private sector would be able to. Programs implemented by government are not the answer. The individual has incredible power to work, succeed, and expand the American economy. Corporations are often looked at with the most disdain because everyone “knows” that they don’t pay their fair share of taxes and their load should be increased. Nothing sounds better to the ordinary working man than the idea of having big companies pay more taxes to “alleviate” the I’m going to make a statement that some may disagree with, but it is absolutely true. Corporations do not pay taxes. As you are reading this, you are probably thinking to yourself, “Is the writer crazy?” No, the truth speaks for itself. Every time a new tax is levied against a corporation, they simply pass the cost along to you. Yes, the very person that wished to heap more responsibility onto the company ends up paying for it through higher prices of products. Accountants will figure out how to keep the profit margin the same or higher if needed. Prices will be increased and the consumer is hurt the most. There is only one entity in this country that actually pays taxes, and that entity is the individual. Businesses and corporations merely collect the taxes from individuals and pas them on to the government. Taxes are paid from wages, and in this country only individuals earn wages. It’s even accurate to say that the assets of our federal government are owned by the people who live here and pay taxes—though exercising any degree of control over those assets might be difficult. (Boortz, 32) So the next time you hear some pundit say, “Corporations don’t pay enough taxes and they should be increased,” just grit your teeth and realize that you will be the one that really foots the bill. So what can really be done to curb the trend of class warfare? Most importantly, we have to gain a new perspective. Instead of despising those who have done well, we should be motivated to achieve a better status. So that you do not think that I am somehow wealthy and just want to protect my own interests, I would like to clarify a few things. I am an average middle class worker who is trying to succeed like most people. Going to college and working overtime can make a very challenging schedule. I don’t expect handouts from anyone to get ahead. Instead, working hard and continually expanding education is what keeps me on the right track to achieving my dreams. It is sometimes disheartening knowing that a good portion of my tax withholdings go to people who choose not to work hard and choose to live a lazy lifestyle. The younger generation has the opportunity to prove their worth and not slide toward a socialist mindset. Instead of finding more ways to redistribute from one class to another, we should find ways to capitalize on talents and find ways for those on the lower economic spectrum to be able to improve their livelihood. We shouldn’t just give a person a fish and fee them for a day. Rather, we should teach them how to fish so that they can eat for a lifetime. Capitalism made this country great and stands as a great example of the strength of the American economy. However, we are at a crossroads that threatens our very way of life. In an effort to improve the lives of people, fanning the flames of class warfare does not help American citizens. There must be an inner desire to do better and achieve in spite of whatever obstacles are put in the road of life. Works Cited:Wikipedia: Online Encyclopedia. 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_warfareThe Bible. King James Version. Rector, Robert. “Poverty in America” http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed083107b.cfm 2007Stanley, Thomas J., Danko William D., The Millionaire Next Door, Atlanta, Longstreet Press, 1996Jackson, Gregg, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, Ramsey, JAJ Publishing, 2006Boortz, Neal, The FairTax Book, New York, Regan 2005

Marvin

www.youtube.com/truthforamerica
www.blogtalkradio.com/truth4amer

A Mortgage Crisis?

2007-10-13T15:54:00.001-07:00

The Mortgage Crisis?
After several robust years for the housing and mortgage industry, it would seem that the housing market is collapsing according to the media. There have been many reports warning of a possible economic collapse because of the housing market experiencing a slowdown. I would like to analyze a few facts that may help to shed light on this situation.
Although many mortgages this year have been defaulted on my homeowners, the vast majority of foreclosures are subprime loans. These types of loans are issued to borrowers whose credit scores are not on the most coveted level. Many times loans underwritten to these borrowers have very high interest rates or adjustable rates which go up whenever interest rates are raised. According to an article in USA Today,[1] one of the large lenders impacted by the slump is Countrywide Financial. Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide, issued a statement that the company was out of the subprime business. Because of the high volume of borrowers defaulting on their loans, the company was later forced to layoff up to 12,000 workers. At the end of June, 2007, nearly 25% of borrowers were behind on their payments to the lender.
In spite of this market squeeze on the borrowers and lenders, the larger component of the market involving conventional loans has not suffered greatly because of this. Most conventional loans were on fixed rate loans and were not affected by the adjusting of interest rates of the housing bubble burst. People who had existing conventional loans or were about to apply for them usually had much better credit than those in the subprime market.
Many consumer advocates in the marketplace advocated government intervention
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2007-09-18-countrywide_N.htm?csp=34
while charging that many lenders were engaged in predatory lending and should be more regulated. Although I do agree that sometimes lenders do take advantage of people who are not familiar with the borrowing practice, sometimes the issue of personal responsibility must also be advocated. Often borrowers sign on the dotted line assuming that the low ARM mortgage that they are starting out with may adjust in the future without preparing for that possible scenario. Contracts offer full disclosure and borrowers need to make informed decisions before signing any contract.
While I do believe that some government regulation is needed in lending practices, I do not believe that the government should be involved in mortgage bailouts. Many politicians toyed with the idea of introducing legislation that would have provided financial assistance to people facing foreclosure. Although their intent may have been noble, I have not been persuaded that this is the answer. Government should not be the first place to look for help. Rather, good decisions and responsibility play a very important role. The more that government involves itself in providing assistance to those who have had a crisis confront them, the more personal responsibility and free market solutions are pushed to the side. The beauty of a free market society is the fact that bad decisions are usually not made over and over. Subprime lenders and borrowers alike have adjusted their practices because of this year’s events. Who is to then say that other people that have a crisis hit them should not be eligible for assistance also?
Personally, although my wife and I have no debt, we have decided to rent for some time until we can save up at least a 20% down payment before we purchase a home. I’m sure we could qualify for a conventional loan much sooner, but the stability of having good equity starting out is much more comforting to me. A payment not to exceed 25% of my income would be the most ideal scenario. In this instant gratification society, often the younger generation immediately purchases what may have taken their parents a lifetime to accumulate. By obtaining massive amounts of debt, consumers considerably lessen their advantage to succeed.

[1]

Hillary is Quiet on Her Wal-Mart Ties

2007-05-21T18:47:00.000-07:00

commondreams.org
NEW YORK -- With retailer Wal-Martunder fire for its labor and healthcare policies, one Democrat with ties to the company, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, has started feeling her share of the political heat.
Hillary Clinton was paid $18,000 each year she served on the board, plus $1,500 for each meeting she attended. By 1993 she had accumulated at least $100,000 in Wal-Mart stock.
Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board of directors for six years when her husband was governor of Arkansas. And the Rose Law Firm, where she was a partner, handled many of the Arkansas-based company's legal affairs.
Hillary Clinton had kind words for Wal-Mart as recently as 2004, when she told an audience at the convention of the National Retail Federation that her time on the board ''was a great experience in every respect."
But in recent months, as the company has become a target for Democratic activists, she has largely steered clear of any mention of Wal-Mart. And late last year, Clinton's reelection campaign returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing ''serious differences with current company practices."
As Clinton sheds her Arkansas past and looks ahead to a possible 2008 presidential run, the Wal-Mart issue presents an exquisite dilemma: how to reconcile the political demands she faces today with her history at a company many consumers depend upon but many Democratic activists revile.
''The interesting question is not just Hillary Clinton's history at Wal-Mart, but why it's delicate for her to talk about Wal-Mart," said Charles Fishman, author of ''The Wal-Mart Effect," a book on the company's impact on the national economy. ''Plenty of Democrats denounce Wal-Mart, but there are also plenty of people who need it, love it and rely on it."

Sign the petition for Hillary!

2007-05-17T21:11:00.000-07:00

Please, keep it going!

To show your support for Hillary and encourage her on her run for President of the United
States in 2008, please add your name to the rapidly growing list below and send it on to your
entire list. This has been circulating for months.
1. Bill
2.

An "Inconvenient Truth"

2007-05-15T19:52:00.000-07:00

The Story of Two Houses>>> LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO
HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:>> A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.
Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH
ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an
ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per
month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:>> Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this
house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house
contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the
American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing
ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.)
heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as
oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/
cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon
underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground
purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land
surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into
the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the
abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as
"the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States,
George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN,
CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the WashingtonPost. Indeed,
for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."