• "The 150,000 jobs, it comes precisely under the methodology I was just describing, that is we have -- we -- we know -- we know spendout, we know the types of spendout, we can assign multipliers to different parts of the plan.  For example, tax cuts generate a smaller multiplier than direct government spending.  Once you know the spendout and the type of spending that you're engaged in, then you can derive an estimate of how many jobs you believe you created relative to what would have occurred in the job market were you not doing that spending."

• "Now, if George Bush had tried, ever, at a single time during his eight years of presidency to talk about the jobs saved, he would have been laughed out of the briefing room, and so would have his press spokesman.  And if in the midst of unemployment reaching 9.4%, on the way to double-digit 10%, in the midst of 1.8 million jobs having been lost since Obama took office, if George Bush faced the same circumstances and touted 150,000 jobs saved or created, he would have been laughed at and editorialized out of the office."
• "We've lost 1.8 million jobs since Barack Obama took office and got the stimulus bill passed.  We were at 9.4% unemployment.  Do you believe these exchanges?  Do you think reporters would be asking for clarification on 600,000 jobs created or saved were it a Republican president who came up with this fallacious notion?  Absolutely no way.  This is the government-run media asking for guidance on how to report this so they can sell it to their viewers, readers, customers..."
• "reviewing the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, using the Jared Bernstein economic projection formula....George W. Bush was the greatest economic leader in decades.  His economic plan, his tax cuts, created and saved over 32 million jobs.  He created or saved four million jobs a year for eight years following 9/11.  Create or saved 32 million jobs, unprecedented in American presidencies."

 

Last week, "this president" (taking a page out of the Democrat playbook when referring to George Bush) criticized corporate executives who benefited from the TARP plan for giving out bonuses. While I too am angry about this, the majority of my anger is with the politicians. THEY SHOULD HAVE NEVER GIVEN THE MONEY AWAY TO START WITH!

But, what really irritates me is when "this president" talked about it being the "height of irresponsibility". No, the "height of irresponsibility"is"this president" and his parasite friends in Washington who are trying to force a trillion dollar so-called stimulus package down our throats that does nothing but grow the size of government.

Two thirds of this plan does nothing to stimulate the economy. Instead, it plants the seed for more entitlements which creates even more people dependent on the government. Of the many ridiculous items in this bill is a tax credit of $500 for an individual or $1000 for a family in which illegal aliens will be entitled to. Yet, "this president" wants to talk about irresponsibility.

 In 1981, Ronald Reagan was dealing with an economy far worst than we are dealing with today. Thanks to Jimmy Carter, interest rates were above 20% and unemployment was twice what it is today. This is what Reagan had to say:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price."

The result of this common sense approach was the longest period of economic growth in history.

Thomas Jefferson once said,

"were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without  newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."This is because the press was considered to be an important aspect of a Republic because it held the government in check and informed the people when government tried to overextend itself to the point where it endangered our basic liberties.

Today, we must deal with a press that is more like the public relations wing  of the Democratic party. Instead of reporting objectively about what our government is doing to infringe on our rights and well-being, the media is more caught up in the celebrity of "this president". The media would rather show pictures of "this president" hangin' with celebs or working out than tell us about illegal aliens getting a tax credit. Worse, they saturate us with propaganda, fabrications and half truths in order to promote the agenda of the Democratic party and "this president".

The agenda? Create more dependency on the government where as to establish a permanent source of votes and complete power over the American people. Strong words you say? Well, think about it. If I am completely dependant on you, you essentially have total influence over my life.

Currently, the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 3% of the taxes.

http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/August/081408ot-federalincometaxandwhattheypay.pdf

This is truly frightening when you think about it because when we get to the point (and we are not far away) where the majority of Americans pay no tax at all, we will reach the point of no return.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.    Alexander Tyler

I realize we are not a democracy, but it is obvious that we are dangerously close to the scenario described by Alexander Tyler. We know the solution to our problems. We have seen it work before. Unlike this past election,we need to refrain from making decisions based on emotion and make decisions based on common sense.

Why? Because I want my kids and grandkids to have the same freedoms and opportunities that I have been blessed with, not the burden of paying the dept created by elite, out of touch politicians who have been enabled by unimformed Americans motivated by wealth-envy and influenced by charisma and star power. That, Mr. President would be "irresponsible" to say the least.

This says it all:

http://theinterface.blogtownhall.com/2008/12/02/sometimes_a_picture_is_worth_1000_words!.thtml

1. William Bradford was the governor of the original Pilgrim colony, founded at Plymouth in 1621. The colony was first organized on a communal basis, as their financiers required. Land was owned in common. The Pilgrims farmed communally, too, following the "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" precept.
2. The results were disastrous. Communism didn't work any better 400 years ago than it does today. By 1623, the colony had suffered serious losses. Starvation was imminent.
3. Bradford realized that the communal system encouraged and rewarded waste and laziness and inefficiency, and destroyed individual initiative. Desperate, he abolished it. He distributed private plots of land among the surviving Pilgrims, encouraging them to plant early and farm as individuals, not collectively.

 

Let's pray that we will have another William Bradford come along in 2012 to lead us out of the "disastrous" results of our obvious paradigm shift to socialism. Perhaps another Ronald Reagan to lead us away from the "disastrous" Carter administration.

 

History does not lie. Socialism has never worked, yet Obama and the Libs continue to move in that direction. The government educated masses are too ignorant to recognize this because they have never been taught our free enterprise system.

 

Capitalism is a timed tested success. No, capitalism does not guarantee everyone success. It does, however, give everyone the opportunity to succeed. Socialism guarantees failure to everyone.

Mitt Romney shares his perspective on the auto industry bailout.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

He was my choice for the Republican nomination, but the Republican party thought it would be best to move to the center and try to bring in the independent vote. Of course, we know where that got us.

How soon will Americans realize they have made a huge mistake? How long will it take for people who are drunk with utopian euphoria to wake up with a big hangover and realize they made a big mistake? Or, has America truly changed form a country of independent, self-reliant, God-loving people to a country of people waiting on handouts and turning their backs on the unborn and, God forbid, the born-alive who as Obama said " would burden the original decision of the woman and the physician" if there was an effort to save them.

What we have done is elect a President who has never really accomplished anything. Obama worked for only 143 days in the Senate before he started running for President. In addition, we still do not know a lot about his history because the media never did properly vet him. There is still a large portion of his life that no one seems to know about and ask yourself this, how many people from Obama's past have come out to vouch for his character? Even John Kerry was able to find people from his past who would vouch for his leadership and character. I can not think of one person; but I do know that, despite the mainstream medias attempts to hide his past, we have learned about some of his associates. William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Resco are all prominent figures from Obama's past and they represent some of the most corrupt, radical, American haiting ideas that we know.

Many American's say they are worried about the economy, yet they voted for a man who will raise taxes and spend money like a drunken sailor. The truth is, they are not worried about America's economy, they are worried about their own personal economy. Unfortunately, far too many Americans would rather depend on the government  than rely on themselves. However, no one stops to think that when the "evil rich" see their taxes go up they will look for ways to cut expenses. One of the biggest expenses for any business is personnell. Therefore, we will see a rise in unemplyment and the very same people who thought Obama would help them get ahead will be looking for a job.


Many Americans say they are worried about national security, yet they voted for a man who will cut military spending and try to pre-maturely pull our troops out of Iraq, despite the fact that we are having great success there. Both of these scenarios could have serious consequences to our national security. If we leave Iraq too soon, the region will fall to the Islamic terrorists and our ally Isreal will be forced to defend itself, which could lead to a major world conflict. Cutting military spending speaks for itself. We have to be able to defend ourselves from Islamic terrorists, Iran, North Korea and a resurgent Russia.

I could go on and on about the ironies in this election, but I think informed Americans get the point. The problem is we are preaching to the choir. The people who will read this (the informed) are, for the most part, in agreement. The libs have a tremendous advantage to push their agenda through the avenues of the mainstream media, public schools, liberal universities and hollywood. As conservatives we have got to figure out how to articulate our values so we can turn this country around. However, we must be careful not to water down conservatism. We have got to figure out a way to educate people on the importance of  a small government, strong military and strong family values.

I believe that we are at a critical time in our history. At some point, Americans are going to realize we made a huge mistake and swing the pendulum back to the right or we are just going shrug our shoulders and accept the radical views of the left. The future of our country depends on conservatives no less than it did when Washington faced the British, when Lincoln faced the Confederates, and when Reagan faced the evil empire of the Soviet Union.

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.

I just had an epiphany. I don't know why it just came to me because it has been in our face for months. "Change" is merely a code word for the next President's skin color. Black Americans who have unknowingly been repressed by liberal policies and black activists, and white Americans who have an over-whelming sense of "white-guilt" will not rest until we have a black man in the White House.

I know it is not politically correct, but anyone who is honest with themselves will agree. If you call Obama a socialist; if you point out his association with radicals; if you criticize his role as a "community organizer"; if you disagree with national health care, welfare, abortion or anything that differs with his views; you are classified as a racist by his supporters. Let's be honest with ourselves. If you are voting for Barak Obama because he is black, who is the racist?

Believe me when I say that it would be refreshing to have a black man in the White House, but not at the expense of our freedom, national security and overall well being. Obama is a great communicator and if not for his radical views and apparent lack of character would make a great President some day. If he were a Conservative and believed in small government, a strong military and the sanctity of life, I would be waving his flag. But the fact remains that he is the opposite of this. That is why I am so opposed to him becoming President.

So, go ahead and call me a racist if you must. My concern is for the well-being of our country, not by how I am perceived by small-minded people.

In case we didn't have enough reasons to vote against Obama, here are a few more.

It turns out that the Obama campaign is now admitting that they did hire a subsidiary of ACORN to do some campaign work for them. Obama has lied about his association with ACORN over the past several months, but the overwhelming evidence to the contrary has forced him to admit the truth. Of course, there won't be much play in the main stream media about this.

Another lie that Obama has been caught in is his association with William Ayers. Obama now says that he did know about Ayers' terrorist acts, but assumed he had been rehabilitated. This is an astonishing acknowledgement because he has claimed for months that he had no knowledge of Ayers' past. It amazes me that this association does not seem to matter to so many. Here is the thought for the day. What if John McCain would have launched his campaign from the home of Timothy McVeigh? What if he had served on the board or made speeches with a known abortion clinic bomber? I think we all know the answer. Amazingly, the press is more concerned with Sarah Palin using her power as governor to fire a violent State Trooper than they are with Obama's association with William Ayers.

Finally(until some other outrageous fact comes out), the Washington Times reported on Friday that when Obama was in Iraq, he tried to undermine the United States' relationship with that country and it's leaders. In my opinion, this is a treasonous act. We have a United States Senator trying to undermine our countries strategy with another country in order to influence a war that our fellow Americans (a volunteer army) are fighting. I don't care what your stance on the war is, this is a despicable act.

Let me take this opportunity to remind everyone that this is not Bush's war. This is a war that the United States Congress voted to enter in to after our nation was attacked. The overwhelming majority of Americans were in favor of this action, therefor our mission should be victory. Victory over terrorism in the global war on terrorism.