Obama Shortchanges American Citizens

While Obama is busy "saving the world" (with his trusty TelePrompter), he's doing a terrible job protecting the U.S. . . .

With TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) and the Stimulus Package, Obama has essentially thrown money (nearly $1.5 trillion) in the direction of his favored groups (bankers, unions, and big city governments) -- and done little or nothing for the American people.

How much is $1.5 trillion? Basically, it adds up to $5,000 for every American -- men, women, and children. In other words, if the Obama Administration had been so inclined, which it was not, it could have sent a family of four nearly $20,000. The "Octomom," with a total of 14 children, would have received $75,000.

Instead, Obama has favored financial institutions, the same ones that caused the global economic crisis. AIG has received nearly $175 billion, the equivalent of nearly $600 from every Americans. Other firms, including the Bank of America, have also received huge sums. Famously, of course, AIG executives received $165 million in "Chris Dodd bonuses." That adds up to about $555 from every American. By the way, did you receive even $1 as a bonus?

Of course, Obama/Geithner pretend that this is "free money." They don't link it to taxpayers. Instead, they imply that the government has a money tree that it can pluck to give payments to favored groups. They forget to mention the huge campaign "donations" Obama and other leftists received from financial institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Merrill-Lynch, and other entities. (Note: Goldman Sachs received the government money indirectly, the better to protect its executives' huge bonuses.)

In fact, giving every American $5,000 would have produced much better results. Because part of the money would have been spent and part invested, the results would have been much better. People would have bought houses, cars, and other goods. How would it have helped, say, banks? Frankly, a lot of the money would have been deposited, which is exactly what banks need. With a big infusion of deposits, banks would have had a great deal more money to lend.

As usual, Obama's politically driven approach has shortchanged the American people. Americans want to believe in the man, but he's giving them precious little reason to do so.

Three Men Control America's Money

Who controls the volume (supply) of money in America (note Garfield's point below)? That power rests mainly in the hands of three men: Barack Hussein Obama, Timothy Geithner, and Ben Bernanke (head of the Federal Reserve). At the G20 Summit, Obama suggested he might want to turn that power over to other nations, a very, very bad idea, as the Founding Fathers would tell Obama.

"The inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the revolutionary war."

--Benjamin Franklin


"All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."

--John Adams

"Whoever controls the volume of money in our Country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."

-- James A Garfield (Assassinated President of the United States)


One of our challlenges -- and one of Sarah Palin's -- is the fact that we're all "nice" people. Well, Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel are NOT nice. They are not good. They are not moral. They are not fans of "right reason" and the Western tradition. They are agents of political mass destruction. We need to make sure that, in the battle for the presidency, "the last man standing" (and, of course, I mean "the last woman") is Sarah Palin.

I wrote today on my other blog how Obama, with his wild spending, is throwing his own children, Sasha and Malia, under the bus, undermining their chances to realize The American Dream. Sarah cares about her children. If Obama cares about his, he has a funny way of showing it. In fact, I believe deeply he cares about one thing on earth, and "its" initials are BHO.

The real enemies of our country -- North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and some others -- are going to "love" having Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. President. His solution to evil nations is to attempt to talk them into submission. In that effort, he will fail, and it will put our country in danger.

What Caused the Economic Collapse?

People like Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Maxine Waters weren't the major causes of the financial collapse, but by their inaction and greed they certainly played major roles. They provided little or no oversight on firms who were basically bankrolling their political careers.

[Note: For those of you who have not yet seen it, please refer to Ron Devito's blog (link below) for the counter-attack against the latest smears against Sarah Palin:http://sarahs-accomplishments.blogspot.com/2009/04/salacious-coverage-of-palin-family-some.html Also see Gary Jackson's fine blog piece: http://hotrodsnitroandconservatism.blogtownhall.com/2009/03/10/with_sarah_palin,_barack_obama_shows_rod_blagojevich_how_pay_-for-play_is_done!.thtml


The best article on how the current economic disaster came about is in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice (Simon Johnson, "The Quiet Coup," The Atlantic, May, 2009)

I don't agree with it 100%, but it's still up in the A-plus category. I've been trying for months to write simply and accurately about WHAT HAPPENED? As a staunch defender of capitalism, I'm saddened that so many supposedly capitalist companies or entities borrowed a lot more money than they could repay -- and have turned to the government for bailouts that they really don't deserve.

If the economy goes bad, as it has, companies need to have the capital and other resources to survive, which many of them did not. They had no real plan for long-term sustainability. In a sense, they were something like . . . Bernie Madoff. As long as the economy was booming, Bernie could pay off his new participants. When it stopped booming, Bernie was up a creek.

The banks, insurers, and other who have essentially failed were not running classic Ponzi schemes, but were excessively leveraged and thus totally unprepared for a sharp downturn. Borrowing money to buy stocks or other products when markets are going up quickly appears to make sense. It's what led to all those huge Wall Street bonuses. It stops making sense when the markets head downward for a sustained period of time. (At the same time, credit dries up because yesterday's reliable borrowers have become un-creditworthy.)

Many big companies have borrowed money -- or engaged in contracts -- that they now can't repay. Unfortunately, millions of individuals have done the same, especially in buying houses they couldn't afford -- or chalking up credit card debts they can no longer pay.

Why weren't we told this was going on by elected officials or the media, whose job supposedly is to tell us what's happening and what lies ahead? Party because they were engaged in similar, questionable behavior, incurring huge amounts of public debt to pay off constituents (or themselves).

They, too, were "betting" that markets (including stocks and housing) would keep on going up forever. However, as Isaac Newton discovered long ago, "What goes up eventually comes down." (Of course, the financial industry was providing huge campaign "contributions" to people like Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank. They weren't about to interfere with that situation.)

Does all thise prove that capitalism doesn't work? No. It proves that capitalism conducted like a Las Vegas "craps" game or "roulette" table doesn't work. Many years ago in NV I bet on red on a roulette table ten times and it came up red . . . ten times. I ended up making more than $1,110, and then I stopped. What if I kept doubling down on red? Eventually, I would have lost all my gains. It was just a matter of time. I got out before I lost everything.

What we saw from financial institituions was that they weren't just doubling down -- they were borrowing tons of money to "bet" on their (metaphoric) roulette table. They set themselves up not to lose $1,100 but rather billions. We as a country have given AIG $170 billion and the money seemingly has gone into a bottomless pit.


The following is from Simon Johnson's Atlantic article:

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.

Fighting Back Against Obama Socialists

Obama's "vision" for America is one that will make the country quickly unrecognizable -- less free, ;ess [properous, less representative, and less able to protect itself from terrorism. Thanks to Anne in Texas for providing the following stories and links.

President Obama greeted the king of Saudi Arabia with a full bow from the waist yesterday, a move one commentator described as a violation of protocol and not worthy of the office he holds. "I am quite certain that this is not the protocol, and is most unbecoming a president of the United States," writes Clarice Feldman in an American Thinker commentary... http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93696 [Steve's comment: "I wonder if he also volunteered to shine the king's shoes and comb his beard?"]
********************************************************************************
Already $1.1 billion is being allocated for "comparative effectiveness studies" for Obama's health care plan. That will be what treatments are good and bad, what's going to be available to us or not. That's the first step toward rationing... http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93780 [Steve's comment: "Is there any truth to the rumor that Obama modeled his health plan on the DMV?"]
********************************************************************************
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Committee on the Budget, explains the Republican alternative to Barack Obama’s $3.66 trillion spending binge... ttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?fc_c=1391591x2951612x105693795&id=31309 [Steve's comment: "Let's see, wasn't Obama the guy who held a summit on 'fiscal responsibility'?"]
********************************************************************************
Side-by-side comparison of proposed Republican budget and Obama's budget... http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20090401_gopbudget_sidexside.pdf [Steve's comment: "The best way to tell the difference between the two budgets is to understand that the Democrats' is the one with all the zeros at the end."]
********************************************************************************
Democrats vote against transparency... http://purplepeoplevote.com/2009/04/03/democrats-vote-against-transparency/ [Steve's comment: "Well, if you were a Democrat would you really want the public to know what was going on?"]
********************************************************************************
Congress is beginning debate on President Obama's unprecedented $3.6 trillion budget that is literally taking our nation toward bankruptcy by borrowing too much, bailing out too many, taxing too much, spending too much and making government too big to sustain. We need you to tell your member of Congress to support the more rational alternative - presented by the GOP Minority Whip. This site has phone numbers for the Blue Dog (Conservative) Democrats and GOP Reps who voted for the OMNIBUS plan. Suggested scripts are also included. Time to hit the phones... http://www.wam08.org/TakeaStand.html [Steve's comment: "The Blue Dogs are people who run as Republicans and then atone for such a sinful act by ceding all power to Nancy Pelosi."]

Democrats Vote AGAINST Obama's Transparency

The Democrats and Obama are not interested in keeping the President's campaign promises. Both Obama and Democratic Senators need to answer why there was a party-line vote against transparency, particularly since the bill is practically quoting the Obama presidential campaign.

Democrats Vote Against Transparency
All but three Senate Democrats voted against an amendment, “To increase transparency by requiring five days of public review of legislation before passage by the Senate.” This simply states that bills that are rushed through the Senate would have to garner 60 votes only if they had not been posted online for five days.

The irony of the Democrat’s opposition is this measure is taken directly from the Obama presidential campaign. President Obama promised more transparency in the government by posting bills online for citizens to review prior to a vote. Apparently, all Democratic Senators except Senators Bayh, Nelson, and McCaskill diagree with this increased transparency. This measure doesn’t exclude a majority vote on any bill; rather, it simply protects against slipping measures into a bill without an adequate review, to protect against situations like the AIG bonus fiasco. It would be interesting to hear individual Senator’s reasons for opposing transparency, and if the President is planning to stick to his campaign promise of putting bills online for review prior to a vote.

More information on the Cornyn Transparency Ammendment

Thanks to Kathy Morrison for providing this material. See:
http://purplepeoplevote.com/2009/04/03/democrats-vote-against-transparency/

Times Suppresses Obama-ACORN Story

The story below about the NY Times suppressing a story linking the Obama Campaign and ACORN illustrates that the once-revered Times has become little more than a propaganda outlet for Obama and his minions. [Read my comments after The Bulletin article.

New York on June 2008. The Times pulled a story about Barack Obama’s campaign ties to ACORN. (Frank Franklin II/Associated Press)

Congressional Testimony: ‘Game-Changer’ Article Would Have Connected Campaign With ACORN

By Michael P. Tremoglie,
The Bulletin
Monday, March 30, 2009

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”

Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.

Ms. Moncrief told Ms. Heidelbaugh the campaign had asked her and her boss to “reach out to the maxed-out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”

Steve adds: The activities described between the Obama Campaign and ACORN are a major violation of election law. The NY Times isn't even a shadow of its former self. It's merely a propaganda outlet for far-left politics. One of (many) problems with ACORN is that it registers voters who lack even a basic undestanding of government and economics. One recent Rasmussen poll shows that roughly 45 million voters don't know the government gets almost its revenues from taxes (with some coming from fees that are also taxes). Fraud plays a part in ACORN's voter registration activities, but gross stupidity is an even bigger problem

Obama's Rules for Campaigning, Governing

To understand the tactics used by Obama and his campaign guru David Axelrod, it's necessary to grasp the "rules" outlined long ago by radical labor organizer Saul Alinsky (in his "Rules for Radicals"). In the last campaign, John McCain and, especially, Gov. Sarah Palin faced such tactics. (In fact, Alinsky influenced both Hillary Clinton, who wrotea thesis on him, and Barack Obama.)

[Note: I'm cross-posting today with my other blog; tomorrow, I will return to offering different columns on each site.]

Supporters of Gov. Palin need to understand Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." Frankly, there's no reason they can't be used AGAINST Obama and his minions. The following points summarize Alinsky's Rules and note how Obama/Axelrod used them in the campaign -- and continue to apply them to undermine potential opponents, such as Gov. Palin.

1. “Rub raw the sores of discontent” – in other words, get irritated people angry enough to demand change, which was Obama's mantra;
2. Convince skeptical and demoralized people that real change is possible (“Yes, we can!”);
3. Understand that hopefulness can overcome a sense of powerlessness; (e.g., Obama's stress on 'hope");
4. Sharpen resentments, fan hostilities, and exploit controversies; (BO’s continual, contemptuous references to "George Bush!" and the targeting of Rush Limbaugh)
5. Begin organizing by first disorganizing the community – to overcome complacency;
   Convince your opponent that your movement is invincible; (“This is OUR time.”)
6. Stay within your people’s comfort zone – their limited experience (e.g., symbols are more effective than substance);
7. Force your opponent outside his comfort zone to create uncertainty and fear;
8. Demand your opponent obey his stated rules, which he usually won’t; (e.g., demanding that Obama's wife not be subject to any criticism -- "lay off my family," as BO said)
9. Use ridicule to infuriate your opposition and generate overreaction (e.g., Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” reference to Palin);
10. Apply tactics that your people enjoy carrying out (e.g., chanting slogans);
    Change your tactics regularly to keep your opponents off-balance; (e.g., wwitching attacks from Bush to McCain to Palin)
11. Maintain constant pressure on the opposition to encourage confusion (e.g., make so many charges your opponent won’t be able to answer them);
12. Threaten an extreme action, such as tying up a major highway, because it's more terrifying than carrying it out; (e.g., suggestions that if Obam lost, there would be “riots in the streets”)
13. Have a constructive alternative to your opponents’ proposals; (“95% will get tax cuts”; a phony promise by Obama)
14. Avoid vague abstractions by picking, personalizing, and polarizing the target (e.g., Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, or George Bush!);

If you go through these “Rules” line-by-line, you’ll be reminded of what Axelrod and Obama did (such as using fear and ridicule/smear tactics). You’ll also understand exactly how we must proceed to overcome Obama and his minions. Being “Mr. Nice Guy” and “Miss Nice Gal” will get us nothing.