It's Hemmer Time

President Obama and the White House forced the resignation of GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner a few days ago.  Not one word was written in our local paper - the Milwaukee Urinal/Sentinel -  or most of the major news outlets - addressing outrage at this display of power and abuse by our federal government.  When the President of the United States can go into a corporation - a corporation that is not run by the government - and dismiss the CEO, people better start to wake up.  Our government is clearly overstepping its boundaries.  (What if President Bush had done the same thing - would the mainstream media would have given him a free pass?  Honest answer:  NO.)   

From the Detroit News (det.news.com) as written by Daniel Howell (3/31/09): 

In one swift act, the president effectively overruled the oversight and fiduciary responsibilities of GM's directors, duly elected by the automakers shareholders, because he could -- and the federal government, officially a lender of $13.4 billion to GM, doesn't own a single share of the automaker.

"Firing a CEO is usually what a board does," says Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University who worked in the enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission. "We now have a CEO-in-chief ... overseeing large sectors of the economy. We are certainly in a brave new world."

Charles Krauthammer, who writes for the Washington Post and has appeared on FoxNews, said recently that what is really scary is that "President Obama has probably never run a lemonade stand, much less a major automobile corporation."  And those in his inner circle probably haven't run a business, either.  Yet, that is exactly what our government is trying to do.  And they are trying to move in on other businesses, too.  Our tax paying-challenged Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, recently asked for MORE power in controlling non-government businesses.

From the New York Daily Times (by James Meek and Richard Sisk, March 24th, 2009):   

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asked Congress for "extraordinary" new powers Tuesday enabling him to quickly jump in and grab the wheel at wobbly Wall Street firms when they start to tank.

Geithner told lawmakers he wants the authority to seize control of nonbank entities like AIG so the feds can take over bad assets and sell off solid ones to rivals.

This is a major step in the direction of socialism and clearly indicates Obama's plan for our country.   America is moving so far to the left that soon Michael Moore will be considered a moderate.

OK, Governor Doyle.  You have some 'splaining to do.

For years Governor Doyle and fellow Democrats have told the voters of Wisconsin that Voter ID is not needed. They have claimed that  Voter ID would "disenfranchise" thousands  of people.  People are too old, too frail, too poor, too stupid, too lazy,  etc.  to get a photo ID. Even if it would be free. 

Yet, photo ID is required in the state of Wisconsin to buy many cold medicines these days - thanks to Governor Doyle.  Our state probably has a lot of sick people running around right now, because they were "disenfranchised" when they went to buy medicine for their illnesses!  They were disenfranchised because they could not produce a photo ID.  The same people were probably refused the right to join a "Blockbuster" to rent videos to watch while they recuperated from their illnesses, too, since Blockbuster requires a photo ID to join...  To take it one step further, the sick people probably could not take all their used Kleenexes to the dump to drop them off either, since before one can take garbage to a dump, one needs to produce....yes!.... a photo ID!!!

Anyhow, if you blinked you missed it.  In the 3/29/09  Milwaukee Urinal/Sentinel, there were a series of articles on how to cope if you lost your job and/or your house.  One of the articles highlighted "food pantries."  It was all about how to go about finding a food pantry, what to expect, who qualifies, and other information.  The title of the specific article is:  "Pantry helps when cupboard bare,"  written by Jan Uebelherr.  Perusing through the article, one item really stood out.  There was a section called:  Where to get food.   In this article, people were informed on such things as  1) where to start (looking for a food pantry), 2) what happens next, 3)  how often can you go, and 4)  how food is chosen.  Under "what happens next" comes the following:

You're also likely to be asked for identification, such as a driver's license AND a recent piece of mail with your name and address.

What?  Why, that's absurd!  We don't even need to produce such information for the most important act of VOTING in this state (which is why Wisconsin is such a hotbed for voter fraud!).   Actually, I went to the Wisconsin government website for applying for a food pantry program.  Besides a drivers license, the food pantry organizations will accept:  a passport, another photo ID, or a Wisconsin ID.  Wow!  What do all of those items have in common?  A picture!  A photo ID.  People have to be able to prove they are who they claim to be.  What a concept.   

Governor Doyle, you have no valid excuses against photo ID.  None.  How about requiring Voter ID in the elections to come?  Preserve the integrity of our voting system.  That is, unless it is in your best interest not to.

Feel free to call or write our photo ID-challenged Governor at:  (608) - 266 - 1212, or write:  P.O. Box 7863, Madison, WI  53707.  Remember, e-mails are never as effective as a phone call and/or letter.  Wisconsin needs Voter ID - the sooner the better!   

 Given President Obama's overwhelming need to have every country in the world like us, he must not be too happy with North Korea's Kim Jong II's plans to launch a missile.  Such a launch (scheduled for early April)  is  a direct affront to the United States and other countries that have expressed concern that such an event signals North Korea is on it's way to developing and testing nuclear warheads.  And it is obvious that North Korea doesn't care what other countries think.   (The United Nations also expressed outrage, but they are such a useless group of thugs and losers as to be totally irrelevant in the big scheme of things.  Kick 'em out of New York and let some other country play host.  The United States doesn't need the U.N., nor does most of the world.  They outlived their usefulness years ago.)  The range of this missile is said to have the capabilities to reach Alaska or Hawaii. 

Check out this site for a more in-depth story:   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/29/gates-prepared-respond-north-korea-missile-launch

A snippet from the same article by Bill Sammon:

"(Defense Secretary Robert) Gates also lamented that the missile launch planned by dictator Kim Jong-Il comes just two months after President Obama took office.

"If this is Kim Jong-Il's welcoming present to a new president, launching a missile like this and threatening to have a nuclear test, I think it says a lot about the imperviousness of this regime in North Korea to any kind of diplomatic overtures," he said.  The Obama administration has signaled it wants to scale back the deployment of a missile defense system that was initiated by former President George W. Bush. The White House is also talking about dropping plans for missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Gates lamented the futility of diplomatic efforts toward North Korea and Iran, another nation with nuclear ambitions. Despite the Obama administration's talk of ramping up diplomatic overtures toward Tehran, Gates was pessimistic about that strategy."

North Korea is just the latest country to embarrass Obama.  First there was Iran, after Obama made a pathetic attempt to "play nice" that backfired.  Iran is well on it's way to developing nuclear weapons, and they flat out chose to ignore Obama's well-wishes on Arab television.  Diplomacy on the part of Obama?  No, more like begging.  Now, why in the world is the leader of the greatest country in the world kneeling before thugs, terrorists, dictators, and other well-known US enemies and trying to placate them?   Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Next up - releasing terrorists from Club Gitmo, with American taxpayers footing the bill for helping these poor terrorists find safe harbor.....which may end up being in the United States.  Few other countries want to play host to murderous thugs, intent on killing those who won't follow Islam their way.  But these "freedom fighters" fighting in the "Overseas Contingency Operation" (translation:  "terrorists fighting against us in "the war on terror")  will probably be welcome with open arms by our liberals and Democrats!  After all, they are probably just misguided souls who need a break - or a government social program to turn their life around!   (Hey, if the United States gets smart and sends the United Nations packing, then we'd have a huge vacant building in which to house terrorists (oops, I mean "freedom fighters" )....what a brilliant idea!  It could work - and the terrorists (oops!  "freedom fighters") would be even closer to their future targets!!!)  

Joe Biden said that within a few months of being elected president, Barack Obama would be tested.  So far, the major type of test Biden implied has not happened, but Obama has had a few quizzes come his way.    With Iran, Obama clearly failed.  What will happen in the days ahead with Iran continuing it's nuclear program?  Who knows.  Will North Korea shoot it's missile without any consequences?  Will it continue to develop nuclear arms, even though the United States has demanded it stop?  Sure looks that way.  North Korea will follow Iran's lead.  Under Obama, the  United States continues to grow weaker and weaker with each passing day... 

But as long as we can talk to our enemies, we should be OK, right?..............just so we cannot hear our enemies laughing at us....

Right now, there are no checks and balances in Washington, D.C.  Obama, with a Democratic-controlled Congress and Senate, is free to do whatever he wants.  The Democrats can pass any legislation they desire, with no Republican minority able to say "no."   Obama campaigned on a promise of "bipartisanship", but that was just another one in a long line of broken campaign promises.  We, as conservatives, aren't surprised. 

Currently, Obama and the Democrats are on the largest spending spree EVER witnessed in the history of  our country.  At a time when restraint, thought, and planning is desperately needed, Obama and his co-horts are shoving every spending program and every pork-laden bill through, without thinking of the consequences.  Democrats want to spend like never before and seem "punch drunk" (much like Obama laughing at our economic situation on his recent "60 Minutes" appearance) at the opportunity presented them by the voters.  And Democrats will soon be increasing taxes, too.  In the meantime,  Obama is on his way to bankrupting our country.  He is spending money we don't have, at an alarming rate. It is difficult to differentiate anymore between what bills cost trillions and which cost billions.  Yet to come, the Presidents budget - with even MORE spending!.  Soon, the dollar will be worthless.  However, there is one solution.

The Chinese - yes, communist China - has the capability to save America.  They can say "no" to buying any more American debt.  They can stop the madness.  And judging from the rhetoric coming from the Chinese, they are extremely worried at what they see happening in America.  Already America owes the Chinese trillions of dollars.  America is getting nervous that the Chinese won't continue buying our debt.  (Hillary Clinton is begging them to do so.)  The Chinese are worried that we are decreasing the value of the dollar at an alarming rate and that we won't be able to pay them what is owed.  Their concerns are very valid.    

So, given that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the majority of Democrats in office,  refuse to put the brakes on this spending spree - we need help!    We need "checks and balances" which have disappeared because the Democrats are in control and do not care that many Americans are concerned about the direction we are headed.  (As a side note:  many Americans do not like what the Democrats are doing.  Most Americans actually want TAX CUTS, not increased spending .  Increased spending means increased taxes!)  America actually need the "checks and balances" the Chinese government can offer us.  The Chinese should refuse to buy any more U.S. debt.   

Ironic, isn't it?  China can actually help save our country, while the Democrats from within try to destroy it.

Guess what "Overseas Contigency Operation" means...

Wrong.

"Overseas Contingency Operation" is supposedly the  Obama administrations' new term for "the war on terror."  Sean Hannity reported this on his radio show today (3/25/09).  Seems the Obama administration has renamed "the war on terror", but hasn't told the general public yet.  Maybe they are waiting to tell us the news after they come up with a different name for "enemy combatants."   That terminology was also recently nixed by Obama.

Our enemies are laughing at us.  We are doomed.

Hello, Mr. President?  Is there anyone in the White House?  Anyone leading the nation?  Besides Nancy Pelosi?   

Nah.....I think President Obama is doing another interview.  Or he could be throwing another fancy party (oops - I forgot, those happen only on Wednesday nights).  He could be out on the left coast,  visiting la-la land,  or hosting another town hall event.   Maybe he's busy watching the NCAA basketball teams - after making a dramatic showing  of picking his favorites for March Madness.   Could he be bowling with Special Olympians, or  comparing AIG and banking executives to suicide bombers....how about acting like a spineless wimp in a video aimed at appeasing Iran  (which backfired terribly)??? 

Now we have the latest in a string of gaffes from the teleprompter-less Obama - a recent (3/22/09) appearance on "60 Minutes," in which our president has a few good laughs at our economic crisis...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20339.html

And I thought the Carter years were bad?  Looks like Obama is starting to nudge Carter out as one of the worst presidents ever.  Our economy is questionable.  Businesses are failing.   People are losing their jobs.  We are fighting two wars.  China and Russia are chomping at the bit to test us.  Iran rebukes our president.  We are signing off on multiple trillion-dollar spending bills at a rate of speed never before seen,  with money we don't even have.  Inflation and stagflation are just around the corner, as well as sky high tax increases. 

 And here comes Obama. 

Leader?  No.  Entertainer?  Yes.  And not even a funny one at that, considering what is at stake.  It is obvious that Obama doesn't know what he is doing, doesn't know how to lead, and is oblivious to the fact that his arrogant attitude is starting to wear thin.  And he continues to demean the office of the presidency.  (C'mon, even lefties have to agree that appearing on Leno AND making NCAA picks on television isn't very presidential, and is almost embarrassing.)  There is a time and place for everything.  Obama has chosen the wrong time and wrong places.  And he is just having so much fun that he fails to see what his words and actions (or lack thereof) are costing the country. 

Like many are saying:  While Nero fiddled, Rome burned.              

Even the most vocal Obama supporters are starting to question Obama and his administration.   Maybe the Kool-Aid is not as strong as it once was. 

 Three years and nine and half months to go.....

With our state budget in tatters, due to years of playing a shell game with taxpayer dollars and robbing from Peter to pay Paul, our ethically-challenged Governor Doyle has a new proposal! 

A $519,000,000.00 choo-choo train!  Yes, a $519 million dollar Milwaukee/Madison train.

Doyle wants to use the federal stimulus money (aka "taxpayer dollars")  targeted for our state -  not to fix our budget, and get us out of a huge deficit -  but instead to create a train that travels to and from Milwaukee and Madison.  Now, here's the kicker....high speed rail?  Well, not exactly.  Let's just say people would end up in Madison at the Dane County Regional Airport, about 20 minutes faster than if they had driven their car!  And once they are deposited at the Dane County Airport, where do they go?  Do you really think that traffic going from Milwaukee to Madison is headed to a small airport on the outskirts of the city?  No.  So, how will people actually get to their destination once they arrive?  Taxi?  Rental car? Bus?  Hitch a ride?  Doesn't our Governor realize that perhaps most of the people who would even think about using this train would rather go to the Madison campus area or the state capital?  And the return trip to Milwaukee begs the same question.  Upon arrival in Milwaukee, how does one eventually get home?  Well, most people will probably need...to drive a car!    All this is moot, however.  The real point is the cost - the taxpayer dollars.

Rather than turn down the federal  "economic stimulus money" like several other state governors have had the fortitude and good sense to do, our governor is chomping at the bit to spend, spend, spend.  With Wisconsin unemployment reaching an all-time high of 8.8% (not seen since 1939), and thousands of manufacturing jobs being lost, taxes and fees increasing (yet another campaign promise broken by "Diamond Jim"), and a proposed state budget of $62.76 billion dollars (a 20% increase since 2003), Doyle wants a choo-choo!

Well, guess what.  In EVERY state that has a high-speed rail system, taxpayers always end up subsidizing such operations, since these trains do NOT make money - they lose money.  The federal government pays a large portion for these trains - and where does the federal government get its money?  From us.  Even in a huge city like Minneapolis, light rail has been a drain on the taxpayers: 

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=20    A brief statement from this article: 

"One of the arguments for light rail is that it is supposed to have lower operating costs than buses. But Minneapolis’ Hiawatha light rail is losing so much money that Hennepin County wants a region-wide sales tax to cover the costs of what Minnesota Governor Pawlenty calls “these very expensive transit projects.” The feds were subsidizing it with a $10 million grant, but that ended last year.

 This one 11.6-mile light-rail line costs more than $20 million a year to operate. Farebox revenues cover only about a third of that. Half the rest is paid by the state of Minnesota and most of the other half comes from Hennepin County property taxes."

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200204/08_mulcahym_gettingthere/mccallum.shtml 

Instead of focusing on curbing spending and eliminating waste, Governor Doyle is intent on doing the exact opposite - spend ON waste!  Taxpayers should be outraged.  Be sure to call our savings-challenged Governor to express your dismay:  (608) - 266 - 1212, or write:  P.O. Box 7863, Madison, WI  53707.  E-mails are never as effective as a phone call and/or letter.  Let's protect what little income dollars we have left. 

To borrow from Victor Ponelis's recent blog titles:  Governor Jim Doyle is an idiot!

As conservatives, we have come to realize that most liberals usual detest the United States military.  They hate the fact that in many cases, wars are necessary evils needed to keep the peace, and one needs a military to fight such wars.  Wars are also required to keep the country safe, as we have experienced lately with the on-going war on terror.  For whatever misguided reason, anything associated with the military is usually the subject of scorn from the left. They were hoping for defeat in Iraq.  Democratic politicians tried to thwart everything Bush did in order to assure failure in the Middle East.  Harry Reid even declared "the war is lost."  Obama still has refused to admit "the surge worked."    And in spite of the Democrats,  American has seen success, thanks to President Bush.  The war in Iraq is almost over - and it's a victory for the good guys. 

Jimmy Carter hated the military with a passion.  Not much more can be said about the lack of leadership from Jimmy when it came to being a "Commander in Chief."  Thankfully Ronald Reagan took charge upon becoming President and fixed the damages inflicted by Carter.  Bill Clinton (and his wife) hated the American military, too.  Upon taking office, Clinton quickly  proposed cutting the military budget by $122 billion over four years.  Unfortunately, Clinton did slash the military budget by almost 30% during his terms, leaving the United States in a weaker defensive state.  Once President Bush came into office, he set out to undo the damage to our armed forced from his predecessor.  President Bush, a true leader, was a strong, solid supporter of our military and our mission.  Our soldiers responded in kind.  And believe me, our soldiers know exactly what President Obama thinks of the military.

Click on : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw  for a very clear picture of how our Marines respond to President Bush and notice how they react to President Obama.  It's clear that Obama cannot "hoodwink" the Marines, the way he did many American voters! 

 Now, to the point of this post.  Since it is obviously a "non-story" and one our mainstream media is virtually ignoring,  I felt is necessary to get the word out.  Obama has proposed what I consider to be a slap in the face to all our men and women in the armed forces.  Just recently, President Obama has given the American people a glimpse as to his true feelings for our men and women in uniform.  He has proposed a plan to make veterans rely on private insurance companies to pay for their combat and/or service related injuries.  Obama wants to have the Veterans Administration seek reimbursements from the veteran's own private insurance to pay for their care.  

Commander David K. Rehbein of the American Legion had this to say after meeting with Obama last week to discuss this matter:  "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate "to care for him who shall have borne the battle"...given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies.  I say again, that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of American veterans!" 

What Obama is proposing is in direct conflict to years of how our country has taken care of it's wounded soldiers.  Our government has pledged to take care of it's soldiers - and this means paying their health care costs that result from their military service to our country.  It does not mean shifting the responsibility to a private insurance company to re-coup funds for the Veteran's Administration.  Our government sent our soldiers into battle.  Private insurance companies did not.  The U.S. government should shoulder the responsibility of caring for our vets.

Even fellow Democrats are aghast at Obama's idea.  Patty Murray (D-Washington) said:  "When our troops are injured while serving our country, we should take care of those injuries completely.  I don't think we should nickle and dime them for their care." 

All this boils down to is that Obama is trying to rob Peter to pay Paul.  Realizing his trillion dollar spending sprees and upcoming budget have no chance of seeing success, Obama is looking for money anywhere he can find it.  Why in the world does Obama think it's appropriate to go after our wounded veterans for money?  And that's all it boils down to - Obama is looking for money.  The private insurance needed to cover veteran's expenses could generate $540 million a year.  Is there any sense of loyalty, respect, or empathy for our soldiers in what Obama plans to do?

In the straight forward words of Joe Violante, legislative director of Disabled American Veterans:  "It's a betrayal." 

Last night (3/19/09), when President (aka "Rock Star")  Obama appeared on Jay Leno (don't ask why, other than Obama seems to STILL be campaigning!)...he made a joke regarding his bowling skills - saying they were akin to being in the Special Olympics.  Now, in this day and age where everything hits the news almost simultaneously after an event or something happens, little is yet to be found about the President's very unfunny remark!  Even this morning, two radio announcers were wondering why this story wasn't out there yet - they actually questioned if the media is withholding it because they do not consider it newsworthy?  (They also expressed dismay that this comment seemed to come out so smoothly from Obama's mouth - as if he's said things like this before.)    If that is the case - just remember, if President Bush had ever uttered something as stupid and insensitive as what Obama said to Leno, this would have made the headlines.  And it would be front-page news for days.  Let's see what (if anything) happens to Obama.  Will the public even be made privy to this little remark? 

http://autismparents.net/obama-makes-special-olympics-joke-on-jay-leno/

Obama needs to stick to his Teleprompter and play it safe.   Otherwise, we will continue to get actual glimpses into the "real" Obama, and many may not like what they see or hear...

We've heard ad nauseam from President Obama and those on Capital Hill - the feigned outrage over AIG bonuses.  Even though Tim Geitner, Obama, and their Democratic cronies had to have had some knowledge over what was going on long before this really became a so-called "issue", Geitner and his bunch definitely had a hand in setting the stage for this activity.  There is currently a lot of finger-pointing going on in Democratic circles as to who is to blame (and for once, it isn't President Bush!)

 Why exactly is AIG the sole target of Obama's wrath?  To make matters worse, our politicians see fit to slap a 90% tax on AIG executive bonuses - yet another dangerous step towards socialism.  When a government deems it fine to tax anyone they want, in order to prevent that person from getting a financial reward, what are we headed for?  Just because some people do not like what other people may be paid doesn't give our government the right to tax people at their own discretion,  or does it?  Is our government now telling businesses how they can be run?  Will our government be picking out certain individuals for a special level of taxation?  Is our government thumbing their nose at our Constitution?  How reprehensible is that?

However, there are some key questions yet to be asked.  Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are also paying out major bonuses to big executives within their ranks.  Yet, why no complaints?  Where is the wrath of Obama?  Why no demands to pay that money back?  Why not hit Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with individual taxes of 90%?  After all, aren't taxpayers on the hook for these big payouts, just like those going to AIG executives?  Well, I think it all boils down to this - Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are liberal entities.  They are controlled by the Obama administration.  Therefore, the bonuses are not a big deal.  After all, our liberal politicians and Obama have been the beneficiaries of campaign contributions and donations from these two companies for years.  Why would Obama and Co. want to bite the hand that feeds them?  Quid pro quo. 

And the taxpayers and America continue to get the shaft.

Barack Obama came through with flying colors the other day.  ESPN basketball analyst Andy Katz said that a few months ago, Obama had promised to reveal his NCAA picks to ESPN when the teams for the NCAA tourney were announced.  Obama did, and he picked North Carolina to win. 

 Here's what Katz had to say about Obama's promise:  "They stayed true to their word and didn't hesitate to get it done," Katz said.

Click here to see more of Obama's picks and comments on the teams:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/duke-coach-obama-worry-economy-ncaa-picks/

And of course, one cannot help but wonder what the mainstream media and other lefties would be saying had President Bush done exactly the same thing - picking teams for the NCAA - during a time of war and economic disaster.  Well, at least Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski didn't give Obama a free pass:

 "Somebody said that we're not in President Obama's Final Four, and as much as I respect what he's doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets," Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said from the Blue Devils' first-round site in Greensboro, N.C.

Maybe Obama will talk about his picks during his upcoming appearance on the Tonight Show!   (Presidents generally do not agree to appear on this television show - it's rather "unpresidential,"   but Obama just cannot seem to get out of "campaign mode."  Let's just hope he doesn't pick up a saxophone and belt out a few numbers while on T.V....)

Obama's Inauguration costs:  $160,000,000.00

Obama's Economic Stimulus Package (aka:  "Porkulus,"  "Generational Theft Act"):  $787,000,000,000.00

Obama's Omnibus Spending Bill (includes 8,000 earmarks):  $410,000,000,000.00

Obama and his Administration's continual swipes at former President Bush:  Priceless

Why do Democrat presidents (and former presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) seem to believe it is just fine to continue to criticize previous Republican presidents and their administrations?  Where is the level of class or maturity when one is the President Of the United States to stop pointing fingers and making snide comments about the actions of one's predecessors? 

Former President Bush has more class than Obama, Clinton, and Carter put together.  Did Bush ever criticize Bill Clinton while in office?  No.  And he sure had a lot of material to work with - starting with the pathetic job Clinton and his administration did to protect the country from terrorism (which was virtually little more than burying their heads in the sand and hoping it would disappear).  Did Bush bring up the romper room activities in the Oval Office?  No.  Did Bush mention the many questionable pardons Clinton rushed through on his last day in office?  No.  Going back even farther, did Ronald Reagan take cheap shots at his predecessor, Jimmy Carter?  If there ever was a case for criticizing a former president, Reagan could have blasted Carter on a daily basis for his horrible leadership, not to mention Carter's economic disasters and energy crisis.  And who can forget about the botched hostage rescue attempt in Iran?  Or the attack of the killer rabbit on ole' Jimmy?  However, did Reagan blame the malaise of the country on Carter when he became president?  No. Yet, why in the world does Obama and his administration continue to reference Bush in derogatory terms?  In doing so, they are exhibiting no class, and no leadership.  Sure, plenty of Americans continue to blast Bush for everything under the sun.  That is their right.  However, they are not in charge of leading our country.  The president should act presidential - not like an immature, spiteful little kid.  And his administration should follow suit.  Instead, we get the following: 

President Obama on 3/11/09:  "We've been in office all of seven weeks so far.  This is a crisis that was eight years in the making."

Obama's White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, on 3/9/09:  "I think we've seen some glimmers of hope.  We've unfurled no "mission-accomplished" banners."

From UPI.Com:  In his inaugural address, Obama proclaimed an end to partisan grievances, but during the past month he has repeatedly mentioned the economic disaster he "inherited," The Washington Post reported Saturday.

These are just a small number of examples from Obama & Co.  The nasty backhanded remarks started with Obama during his Inauguration speech, and they have continued to slip in to Obama's talks from that day on.  Does anyone really respect leadership when the so-called leaders continue to blame everything on someone else?    The mainstream  media needs to call Obama out for his bad behavior, rather than cheer him on.  Obama needs to act presidential, not like a five year old.  And hopefully, his administration will follow suit.

I cannot make this stuff up.  President Obama and his administration continue to provide conservative bloggers with so much to write about, it is sometimes hard to know where to begin.  After lying about practically everything to get elected, our President has shown himself to be little more than a puppet for the ultra-liberal positions of Nancy Pelosi - who really seems to be running the show.  That is unfortunate.  For all those who actually drank the Obama Kool-Aid and thought they were voting for a "moderate," forget about it.  Our country as we know it is disappearing.  Soon we won't be able to tell the difference between the U.S. and France. Although France may have a stronger military by the time Obama is done.  Where are the bumper stickers declaring "Obama lies, America dies?"

Anyhow, the latest in the ever-changing American landscape now has the U.S. dropping the term "enemy combatant" from our vocabulary.  You know, those enemy combatants - the ones who wish to murder Americans simply because we exist?  The same enemy combatants caught on battlefields during the war on terror?  (Oops!  I forgot - Obama and Co. don't even want to use the term "war on terror" anymore, either!).   Enemy combatants are terrorists that are currently detained in country clubs like Club Gitmo. 

What are we going to call them now?  Liberals are very fond of softening terms they deem to be too harsh.  A great example is calling those who are "pro-abortion" (you know, when mothers chose to murder their babies before they are born) "pro-choice" instead.  Doesn't "pro-choice" sound so much better?  Kinder?  Easier to swallow?  Very similar to how our mainstream media likes to refer to terrorists as "freedom fighters."  Or illegal aliens as "undocumented workers."   Now we can no longer use the term "enemy combatants" to describe those who want to murder us!   What should we call them?  "Not really nice guys" doesn't work. "Murderous thugs" is too nasty.   "People we are fighting against" is too long.  How about "meanies?"

It is really ridiculous.  Political correctness run amok.   What is even more incredible is that, according to our own Journal/Sentinel - Associated Press (3/14/09) "Although dropping the term "enemy combatant" will have little practical effect, it is a symbolic move by the Obama administration to break with the past."  Oh, great.  So in his desire to reverse "everything Bush,"  Obama is signing off on anything, not even knowing or caring why.  We've got to change this, because, well,  because Bush did it!!!  Is the Obama administration so childish and gleeful in their desire to "stick it to Republicans" that they will scrap everything Bush did, no matter how good or effective Bush's programs were?  Well, President Bush did one heck of a job protecting the United States after 9/11. 

Unfortunately for the United States, Obama seems intent on dismantling everything our former President did - simply because our former president did it.  Maybe when Obama is sitting down to chat with the Taliban  they can put their heads together and come up with a new, politically-correct term for "enemy combatants!"  

Having recently done a blog on "The Evil Rich,"  I thought it might be appropriate to look at the so-called "poor" in America.  The poor that Obama and the Democrats portray as somehow having been robbed by those who have more.  The poor that are somehow poor BECAUSE of the rich.  Frankly,  it's all a myth.  Economic opportunities are never stagnant.  There is not a fixed amount of money available in America.  Just because someone has more than someone else does not mean in any sense that that person took from the other person to have more.  Everyone has the same opportunities, and those opportunities can allow people to earn as much as they wish.

 Everyone has heard Democratic politicians speak of two America's.  The two Americas the Democrats refer to consists of the rich and the poor.  I disagree with that statement.  Now with Obama as our president, the only two Americas we will see will consist of those who work for a living, and those who live off of those who work.

What liberals and Democrats fail to take into account in classifying people by income,  is that people are different.  Everyone in America has different lifestyles and likes different things.  We are not the same in how we think, what we like to do, how intelligent we are,  what we are good at, our emotions,  whether we like to work hard, or whether we like to take it easy,  what we like to eat, what we earn, our health,  and especially in how we chose (key word:  chose)  to live our lives.  Instead of labeling people by how much they earn, shouldn't we look at life experiences?    Sure, some people are called rich.  Some are middle class.  And some are said to be poor.  Yet, who ARE the poor in America? 

 When one hears the word "poor,"  what comes to mind?  Well, poor usually means one lives in poverty.  Here is the definition of poverty, (from the 2008, Encyclopedia Britannica):

     "The state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.  Poverty is said to exist when people lack the means to satisfy their basic needs.  In this context, the identification of poor people first requires a determination of what constitutes basic needs.  These may be defined as narrowly as "those necessary for survival" or as broadly as "those reflecting the prevailing standard of living in the community.  The first criterion would cover only those people near the borderline of starvation or death from exposure;  the second would extend to people whose nutrition, housing, and clothing, though adequate to preserve life, do not measure up to those of the population as a whole."

What is poverty in America?  The U.S. Poverty guidelines from 2009 consider a family of four poor if their income level doesn't exceed $22,050.00 per year, for example.  A single person is in poverty if they earn $10,830.00 per year or less.  A family of eight is deemed poor if they bring in no more than $37,010.00 annually.  Given those income levels, are the poor faced with starvation, inadequate housing, or a lack of clothing?  In many countries, those are the actual criteria for determining if one lives in poverty.  Yet, in the United States, we find very few people living in poverty defined as such.  Compared to other countries, the majority of our poor are relatively well-off.  From the Heritage Foundation's Richard Rector:  

"Poverty is an important and emotional issue.  Last year the Census Bureau released it's annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor people living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as the preceding years.  According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Americans were poor in 2005, this number has varied from 11.3% to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.

To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers - to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.  For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution; an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter.  But only a small number of the 37 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description.  While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity.  Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable to well-off just a few generations ago.  Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970's, after adjusting for inflation."

From the Heritage Foundation's biography on Richard Rector:  Rector is considered an expert on poverty.  He is also a leading national authority on U.S. welfare and immigration.  Rector's work on the 1996 welfare reforms earned him the Dr. W. Glenn and Rita Ricardo Campbell Award, given to the Heritage employee for "outstanding contributions to the analysis and promotion of a Free Society." He is the author of America's Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty, a comprehensive examination of U.S. welfare programs, and co-editor of Steering the Elephant: How Washington Works.   Rector joined The Heritage Foundation in 1984. He has previously worked as a Legislative Assistant in the Virginia House of Delegates and as a Management Analyst at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. He has also served as a Commissioner on the congressionally mandated Millennial Housing Commission. Rector holds a bachelor's degree from the College of William and Mary and a master's degree in political science from Johns Hopkins University.

Rector goes on to say this about the poor in our country:

"Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave.  He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo.  He is able to obtain medical care.  His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded.  By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.  Although this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor.  There is actually a wide range of living conditions among the poor.  For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all.  While the majority of poor households do not experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty obtaining medical care.  However, even in households in which such problems do occur, the hardship is generally not severe by historic or international standards.

Of the 37 million people living in what our government terms "poverty", only 2% of the bottom 20% of that figure represent real poverty in America.  Real poverty does exist, but on a much smaller scale than our government wants people to believe."

Living in America does not guarantee success. Living in America does guarantee an equal opportunity for all.  Living in America does not guarantee that you will be rich, middle class, or poor.  There is no way of knowing if one will be successful or a failure.  However, during a person's lifetime, their position in society is always in flux.  One can always achieve greater goals or make more money.  One can always take a step backwards, too.  One may be rich one day and poor the next.  Poor one day and rich the next.   There are guidelines to follow in life which are straightforward and offer the best path to achieve one's own goals and attain the lifestyle one may wish.  In America, everyone has an equal opportunity to be the best they can be.  Several common sense rules of thumb can help along the way:

1)  graduate from high school (in other words, stay in school.  Going on to college is an added plus.)

2)  work (whether part or full time, whether you are in school or not.  Work experience is the first step in becoming responsible and earning money, not to mention the valuable learning opportunities working provides.)

3)  don't get married until you are older - at least in your twenties

4)  don't have children until you are married and can afford them

5)  don't do illegal drugs 

6)  if you drink,  drink in moderation

7)  don't smoke

I can already hear the cries from the left, saying the poor have little chance in life because the deck is stacked against them.  How so?  Please tell us what prevents people from finishing high school?  What prevents anyone these days from using birth control so they don't have unwanted pregnancies?  What stops people from getting married?  What prevents people from working if they are healthy and capable?  What forces people to drink and/or do drugs?  Who twists peoples arms so they start smoking?

After 50 years of a welfare state touted by liberals to end poverty, what have we achieved?  Nothing.  Nothing but a culture of dependency.  Work to Welfare (W2) was the first step towards breaking the evil cycle.  Imagine, actually requiring people to learn a skill and eventually work.  Forcing people to make an effort to be capable of providing for their own families, rather than having to rely on the government to provide for their every need.  Granted, W2 may have been difficult to adjust to for the first or second generation having to follow the program.  However, in the long run, W2 participants were laying the foundation for the future with examples for their children.  When children see mom and/or dad actually working and earning money, doesn't that beat see mom and/or dad sitting around the house all day waiting for a government check to arrive?    Obama and Co. want to destroy W2 and take people back to dependency on the government.  Why?  For votes, which in turn means power.  How sad and self-serving.  After all the years of saying "anything goes", liberals keep trying to make sure people don't have to be held responsible for themselves. 

In conclusion, the poor in America are mainly considered poor because our government defines them as such.  The government could set the poverty guidelines at $100,000.00 per year for a family of four if they wanted to.   Some people may be poor and not even realize it, until they see that the government has determined that they live in poverty!  For example, a close relative of mine lives in California.  He has chosen to work only part-time, in order to pursue other activities - like surfing and hiking.  He values his free time over working full-time.  Subsequently, he lives in a trailer park.  He doesn't make a lot of money, but he is very happy.  He lives very frugally.  He is doing what he wants.  And our government defines him as "poor,"  but he does not see himself that  way.  Just as some of the very rich may be totally devoid of true happiness in their lives.  Poverty could be considered a very abstract concept in many cases.

  Sure, there is an extremely small number of truly poor in America - the homeless make up a large portion of that number.  Homelessness may result from mental illness, drug and/or alcohol abuse, or dire situations.  And our society does what it can to help the homeless out.   (In some cases,  people actually are too proud to ask for a handouts.  They prefer to be left alone to be responsible for themselves and do not wish to beg for help from others.)   To help the truly destitute in our country,  we all know that Americans do what they can to help others.  The United States is the most charitable country - both right at home and in the world!    Food pantries, homeless shelters, charities, etc. all are created by fellow Americans who wish to help those who are less fortunate.  We have food stamp programs, medical assistance, renters and heat assistance,  and free breakfasts and lunches from schools - which even continue during the summer months. 

Yet, why does our government inflate the numbers on who is really poor in our country?  Because high counts on the poor benefit the government.  They can continue to raise taxes on high and middle earners - saying the "poor" programs need more funding.  Because of the increased tax dollars, there are then more federal dollars to distribute.  There are government programs out there that keep people employed.  Such government programs keep money flowing into various bureaucracies.  And, most importantly, the poor provide votes, which in turn provides power.  Ignorantly, the poor tend to vote for the very party that wishes to keep them poor - the Democrats.  For the Democrats, it pays to have the poor in the population - and the more the better.  Hence, the inflated numbers on who is poor in America.  Politicians benefit from having people labeled as "poor," and the more that fall into that category, the more government aid is considered a necessity.  And the more taxes need to go up.  And in providing more government aid, more people become dependent on the government.  What a vicious cycle.  And this vicious cycle is leading us closer to President "spread the wealth"  Obama's desired goal - socialism.  Keep playing the class warfare card - rich vs. poor.  No matter how little truth is behind it.    

 ****This post  was updated:  April 5, 2009.  I received an e-mail directly  from the author (Ali Sina) that I reference in the following blog.  Many bloggers such as myself have been crediting a Dr. Sam Vaknin with the writings mentioned below.  That is not the case.  Ali Sina wrote about Obama and narcissism and briefly touched on some studies/observations from Dr. Vaknin.  Otherwise, the credit for the article cited in my post should be given to Sina.  Please click on the following link mentioned below to go to Sina's website, which goes into even greater detail re:  Obama and narcissism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Thanks to my conservative sister, Moe, who continues to send me interesting e-mails regarding subjects we are both passionate about - politics and the well-being of America.  I received the following item from her the other day and it is very unsettling, to say the least.  It obviously was written before the presidential election, but the words are as relevant today as they were several months ago.   

  Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who is the founder of the "Faith Freedom International" website, which is an internet site critical of Islam.   Sina has written a book "Understanding Muhammad."   Sina briefly referenced the writing of Dr. Vaknin ( Dr. Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.,  is an Israeli psychologist.  Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism.  He wrote a book called "Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited.")  regarding our current president (presidential candidate at the time), but Sina also wrote extensively on Obama in the following article:

  http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html 

 Here is a brief synopsis from some of Sina's writings:

 At first I was excited to see a black candidate.  He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package.  I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling.  His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history.  Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people.  The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man.  He is not a genius.  In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects." 

     Over the past weekend, the American Conservative Union held their annual conference.  Several key conservative figures were invited to speak, among them Rush Limbaugh.  Limbaugh, a conservative talk show host,  has a nationally syndicated radio program that more than 20 million people tune into daily.  While at the conference, aside from giving a powerful and exciting speech, Limbaugh also accepted the "Defender of the Constitution" award. 

     Limbaugh is fast becoming a beacon for true conservatives, who feel that many Republicans in government have forgotten what they stand for.  Too often Republicans have fallen into the pattern of behaving like Democrats and not standing firm on conservative principles.  What this country so desperately needs, especially after six weeks of Obama, is a return to conservative roots.  And Limbaugh is just the person to guide us! 

       Click on the link below to watch Limbaugh's speech in it's entirety: 

          http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15919

     Following are some words of wisdom from Rush from his speech: 

     "We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know.  What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By media, by the Democratic Party.  Let me tell you who we are.  We love people.  When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, we see Americans.  We see human beings.  We see potential.  We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work.  We do not see that person with contempt.  We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes.  We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path, like onerous taxes, regulations, and too much government."

     "We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.  We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life.  And the pursuit of happiness.  We conservatives think all three are under assault."

     "We look over the country as it is today and we see so much waste, human potential that has been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state.  By a failed war on poverty."

     "You know what the cliché is, a conservative:  racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen of America, if you were paying attention, I know you were, the racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year."

     "We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, it's individuals must succeed.  Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or desire, whatever, with excellence.  Trying to be the best they can be.  Not told, as they are told by the Democratic Party:  You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you.  You can't get anywhere.  You need to depend on us."  Well, take a look.  Take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democratic Party to improve their lives.  And you tell me if you find any.  They're still complaining, still griping over the same problems.  Their problems don't get fixed by government.  And those lives have been poisoned.  Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you.  Just vote us in."

     "President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have every witnessed.  He has extraordinary talents.  He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass.  It just breaks my heart that he does not use these extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be.  He's doing just the opposite.  And it's a shame.  President Obama has the ability to inspire excellence in people's pursuits.  He has the ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes earners - and he speaks negatively about the country.  Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill.  Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure.  He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead.  And it's troubling, because this is the United States of America.  We're less than 300 years old.  We are younger than nations that have been on this planet for thousands of years.  We're not better just because we're born in America.  How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known?  How did this happen?  And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it?"

     "President Obama is so busy trying to foment and create anger in a created atmosphere of crisis, he is so busy fueling the emotions of class envy that he's forgotten it's not his money that he is spending.  In fact, the money he is spending is not ours.  He's spending wealth that has yet to be created.  And that's not sustainable.  It will not work.  This has been tried around the world, and every time it's been tried, it's a failed disaster."

     "When Obama talks about past economies, he somehow always leaves out the recession of the 80's as worse than this one.  Why does he leave it out?  He leaves it out because we got out of the 1980's recession with tax cuts.  Do you know that President Obama, in six weeks of his administration, has proposed more spending than from the founding of this country to his inauguration?"

     "Now, this is not prosperity.  It is not going to engender prosperity.  It's not going to create prosperity and it's also not going to advance or promote freedom.  It's going to be just the opposite.  There are going to be more controls over what you can and can't do, what you can and can't drive, what you can and can't say, where you can and can't say it.  All of these things are coming down the pike, because it's not about revenue generation to them, it's about control.  They do believe they have compassion.  They do believe they care.  But, see, we never are allowed to look at the results of their plans, we are told we must only look at their good intentions, their big hearts.  The fact that they have destroyed poor families by breaking up those families by offering welfare checks to women to keep having babies - no more fathers needed, he's out doing something, the government's the father, they destroy the family.  We're not supposed to analyze that.  We're not supposed to talk about that.  We're supposed to talk about their good intentions.  They destroy people's futures.  The future is not Big Government.  Self-serving politicians.  Powerful bureaucrats. This has been tried, tested throughout history.  The result has always been a disaster.  President Obama, your agenda is not new.  It's not a change, and it's not hope.  Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion.  All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation.  It is not their task to remake the founding of this country.  It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image."

     "Now let's talk about the conservative movement as it were.  We have challenges that are part and parcel of a movement that feels it has just suffered a humiliating defeat when it's not humiliating.  This wasn't a landslide victory.  52, to what,  46.   Fifty-eight million people voted against Obama.  There would have been more if we would have had a conservative nominee."

     "This notion that I want the President to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got.   That's nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it, why in the world do I want what we just described:  rampant government growth, indebtedness, wealth that's not even being created yet that is being spent, what is in this?  What possibly is in this that anybody of us wants to succeed?  Did the Democrats want the war in Iraq to fail?  They certainly did.  The not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure.  There's Dingy Harry Reid waving a white flag "This war is lost."  They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified.  Mrs. Clinton said she had to, willingly suspend disbelief in order to listen to Patreaus.  We're in the process of winning the war.  The last thing they wanted was to win.  They hoped George Bush failed.  So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?  Why would I want that to succeed?"

      "The Democrat Party has actively not just sought the failure of Republican presidents and policies and now wars for the first time, the Democrat Party doesn't stop at failure.  Talk to Judge Robert Bork, or Justice Clarence Thomas about how they tried to destroy lives, reputations, and character.  And I'm supposed to say I don't want the president to fail?  We're in for a real battle.  We are talking about the United States of America.  And it's under assault.  It's always been under assault.  But it's never been under assault like this from within before.  And it's a serious, serious battle."

   In his parting words, Limbaugh encourages conservatives to remain optimistic and confident.  There will always be an America.  And conservatives must work hard to keep America safe. 

     Class envy.  The modus operandi of the left.  We must hate the rich!  We must love the poor!   Those with money - specifically those earning more than $250,000.00 per year,  now have big targets on their backs.  Tax 'em!  Tax 'em MORE!!!  After all, they deserve it!  They have MORE than others!

     What the left seems to believe is that those fortunate Americans, who work hard and have achieved sizable incomes, somehow are taking away from those who have less.  This is not the case.  America is the land of opportunity.  The economic pie is not stagnant - like Obama and liberals lead people to believe.  Just because one person has more than the other person does not in any way mean that the person with more is depriving the person with less of anything.  (And the person with more does not necessarily even have to be rich!)   Those with less DO have the opportunities to earn more.  To learn more.  To better themselves and succeed.  

     The economic pie does not have boundaries.  The rich can get richer.  The middle class can become rich.  The poor can become middle class and/or rich.  Obama and Co. would like to see the rich and middle class BECOME poor.  That way we can all be miserable and rely on the government for everything!

     What Obama & Co. fail to take into account in their desire to punish those who are successful, is that many wealthy people run businesses that provide jobs to many other people that may not be wealthy.  They may employ hundreds or thousands of workers - enabling many Americans to earn a living.  A few days ago on talk radio (yes, that dreaded, evil talk radio that needs to be silenced with the Fairness Doctrine!), people were discussing how gleefully those on the left were saying that the rich should be taxed more.  The question arose, what would happen?  Well, for one thing, the rich probably will still be rich, however they might scale back on purchases.  The joke was that many rich people may not buy sub-zero appliances anymore!  Ha ha ha!!!  Well, a caller brought up the fact that her brother-in-law actually worked for a sub-zero appliance maker.  He wasn't wealthy, but earned a good living and was able to provide for himself and his family.  Now, if the filthy rich snobs refuse to buy sub-zero appliances because the government wants more of their money, who is it really hurting?  The filthy rich snobs we all must despise?  Or the man who works for the appliance company that makes appliances that filthy rich snobs no longer buy? 

     What I also find so funny is that whenever lefties talk about the rich, with such disdain, is that many of them ARE the very people they talk about.  Think Oprah Winfrey is rich?  Stephen Speilberg? Sean Penn?  Bill Clinton?  Our current president, Obama?  Why is it OK for them to make more money than most of us will ever see in our entire lifetimes, yet we are supposed to hate people who head up big businesses and get big bonuses!  They are the evil ones - not the Hollywood elites, pro athletes, or former presidents.... 

     The liberal cliché of how the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich is a fallacy, too.  From the National Center for Policy Analysis (10/23/08):  "It is politically popular to say that tax cuts benefit the wealthy," said Michael D. Stroup, a Stephen F. Austin University economist who authored the NCPA report.  "The accusation does not match the reality."  

     If anyone would take the time to do the research, they'd easily find that the Bush tax cuts helped everyone who actually paid taxes.  Of course, those who paid the most (usually the rich) got the biggest tax breaks.  (Doesn't that make sense?  Or am I missing something?) In 2006, 53.7 percent of federal income taxes were paid by those with incomes of more than $200,000. Those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 28.3 percent of individual income taxes.   

     As a nation, shouldn't we be celebrating the success of people who achieve great things?  Who start a business and build that business into a huge corporation?  Who invent and create new things to better society?  Who provide jobs to hundreds, thousands, or millions of people?  Who donate to philanthropic causes and charities?   I believe we should.  But our current administration does not.  No, the rich are to be punished!  As are other taxpayers.   Because of Obama's "Economic Stimulus Plan" (aka "Porkulus" and "The Generational Theft Act"), we'll all be seeing increased taxes shortly, as well as runaway inflation.  And if we continue down this road of punishing those who are successful, who will want to succeed anymore?  Why bother? 

     "Spread the wealth?"  or "Spread the misery?"  Welcome to socialism, comrades.