As President Obama declares that we need to inflate our tires and conserve energy, he flies to Iowa to pimp windmills at the cost of 9,000 gallons of fuel.  Mark Knoller reports that Air Force One used 8,950 gallons and Marine One consumed another 166 gallons of fuel.  Add to that the motorcade fuel, not to mention the newly designated deadly pollutant carbon dioxide.  So I guess this would be another do as I say, not as I do moment.  As he continues to campaign rather than lead, he "he urged Americans to support his plan for promoting expanded use of alternative and renewable fuels."

Andrew P. Morriss wrote an article about the illusion of "green jobs" in an article for the Baltimore Sun.  He wrote, "Unfortunately, claims about the wonders of green jobs are all too often constructed on myths about economics, forecasting and technology."    He goes on to state, "Spending billions would certainly produce green jobs, but it would also eliminate jobs in areas that lose government favor. Green-jobs advocates rarely count the job losses their programs will cause. For example, shifting electricity production from coal to wind means that many coal miners, truck drivers, utility workers and other employees will lose their jobs as energy prices soar. And because wind and solar power are much more costly than our current sources of energy, people will lose their jobs elsewhere as higher energy prices slow the economy. To make a fair calculation of the impact on employment, we have to consider job losses as well as gains."

Alternate energy sources are cost prohibitive at the present time, but the government has a plan to deal with the problem of this little obstacle.  They are going to make wind and solar energy just as affordable as coal fired and nuclear energy.  Will they be lowering the price of the alternative fuel?  Oh, no, no, no, no, no.  They will regulate and tax the existing energy sources until they are as expensive as the alternative sources.  And the proponents of the plan expect us to believe that this is not a problem either because corporations and individuals will break even or even save money because although the energy prices are higher, things will be much more efficient and thus less energy will be consumed.  A lot of assumptions are made in their efforts to pull the wool over our eyes.  When the carbon tax failed to go through initially, the EPA took the next step to regulation by making carbon dioxide a pollutant.  House leader Nancy Pelosi says that the carbon tax issue is sure to be raised again.  The carbon tax will affect everyone with increased cost of living.  So much for taxes not going up for 95% of people.  It may not be a direct tax, but corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them along to consumers.  So when manufacturers, transporters and retailers all add their portion of the carbon tax to the goods we buy, prices will be sure to rise.  Couple the price increases with the inflation that is sure to come from the printing of trillions of dollars that will be added to the money supply and the result is much lower purchasing power for the much more limited cash we will be able to earn.

Just remember that everytime the government gets involved in business, the result is less than desirable.  Government does not produce anything, it simply takes the fruit of our labors to continue its power grab and industry control.

By the way, have you ever read the 10 step plan for cleaning up a broken compact fluorescent light?  Evidently, going green includes replacing the safe incandescent bulb with the dangers of mercury poisening.  Do the disposal costs really offset the enrgy savings?  With over 50 manufacturers in China, how much energy is consumed by shipping the bulbs to the U.S. to help us reduce our carbon foot print?

I'm all for conserving energy and doing the right thing for the environment, but some of this stuff is such crap that it is sickening to see people sucked into it because they believe the government is always right and knows better than we do.  That would be the same people who think that the government is supposed to take care of our every need from the cradle to the grave.  That would be the same people who need to learn to take the responsibility for themselves instead of waiting for others to contribute to the system for them.  It may be too late for them to wake up and see what is coming.

Why does it need to be such a difficult issue?  Concerning President Obama, is he or is he not technically eligible to be president of These United States of America?

The professional politicians of our day have trampled the Constitution under foot in pursuit of gaining and retaining power.  It has been a deteriorating situation as the years pass and the full time politicians feel the need to always be doing something in D.C. to justify their presence.  Unfortunately for we the people, the laws, regulations and uncontrolled spending have produced an oppressive atmosphere in our beloved country.

The arrogance of our legislators, judges and executive has created a situation where even our freedom of speech is being threatened.  To challenge the validity of President Obama's qualifications is now looked  upon as lunacy and appears to be approaching criminal activity.  Court cases are dismissed without hearings for a variety of reasons.  Judges even mock those who bring the cases.  The political parties have no courage to stand up for what is right.  The people of this great nation are not being listened to on this issue or any number of other issues from the sanctity of life, to the definition of marriage, to the illegal alien invasion.

The very oath taken by our federal officials is broken almost immediately after the swearing in ceremony.  The Constitution they swear to uphold and defend is only consulted when it supports what they want to do.  If it is in the way of their goals, it is as if it doesn't exist.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

President Obama has, and has had all along, the power to put the debate to rest.  All he has needed to do, and can still do, is to produce a valid birth certificate.  What has been published on his website is not an actual birth certificate.  So the question that needs to be asked is, "What does President Obama have to hide?" 

A World Net Daily report explains, "Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Further complicating the issue are the reports he was adopted by an Indonesia man during his childhood and moved to Indonesia and attended school there. There also are questions on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan.

Lawyers and plaintiffs in a multitude of lawsuits also have asked why, if a birth certificate actually reflects that Obama was born in Hawaii, has he spent sums estimated by observers of up to $1 million hiring various law firms to keep concealed his birth certificate, his college records and other documentation

Perhaps the birth certificate does not exist.  Concerning the Hawaii certificate, it is a certificate of live birth which is different from a birth certificate.  From Berg v. Obama, "Obama has tried to obfuscate the issue by providing a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) from Hawaii authorities.  Said document has been proven as a forgery. The left-wing Annenberg organization factcheck.org has tried to obfuscate the issue even more, by declaring the forged document as real.  The primary issue however, is that the document in question is only a registration of birth filing, and not an official "Vault" Birth Certificate.  Registration was a method used by some to gain U.S. citizenship even after being born in a foreign country.  Many of Obama's relatives in Kenya say that Obama was born in Kenya, and flown to Hawaii after three days to enable the registration filing.  The above linked video of his Kenyan Grandmother suggests that Obama was born in Kenya, but is not conclusive."

And what of his school records?  Is it possible that he used foreign student status to gain exchange student privileges and grants?  This is consistent with the ploys of today's politicians in general.  Use the details and facts when advantageous to achieving the goal, otherwise ignore them.

Beyond the eligibility issue, other amendments and rights are under attack.  From free speech, to bearing arms, to freedom from involuntary servitude, all are being threatened.  It isn't all President Obama , in fact, it is mostly the Democrat controlled House and Senate.  The President still signs off on the issues and is therefore held to some degree of responsibility for the resulting actions and repercussions .  As we heard throughout the campaign, eight years of failed Bush policies was the cause of all of our ills.  Of course the opposition led Congress was not held accountable by our media.

Back on November 7, 2008, I wrote about "America Serves" on change.gov which was President Obama's site on which he spelled out some of his plans.  This was a program that mandated community service under the guise of volunteerism.  Don't get me wrong, I do believe that volunteerism and community service is a good thing.  Once it becomes mandated by the Federal Government, however, it crosses the line and is no longer volunteer service.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I wrote, "That's it, the whole amendment.  It is pretty straight forward and easy to understand.  Involuntary servitude is not constitutional.  the phrase, "developing a plan to require" is the key point.  If the service is required, it is involuntary."

Shortly after this article was written, along with a great many other articles decrying the proposed action, the website was changed.  So "by developing a plan to require" has been changed to "by setting a goal that".  Whether the word "require" is used or not, if the service is in fact required, the point that it is unconstitutional remains the same.    More information can be found at the linked article.

And now it has become The Give Act.  Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act’ or the ‘GIVE Act’.  More details can be found at the Education & Labor site. A FOX news article states, "The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 "new service opportunities" under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional "corps" to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation."  

"We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn't emulate and probably can't imagine," said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. "The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative."

"It's allowing taxpayer funding of the left-wing organizations," said Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union.  I think this is a problem that is rife throughout the federal government. When you dramatically expand the program, then you dramatically expand the ability for these left-wing advocacy organizations to get more funding. I don't see a lot of attention being paid to that, even from those who are critical. That's where the focus should be. Republicans tend to say its not that they oppose the program, they just want to spend less money. It's the program that's bad."

On February 28, 2009, I wrote an article titled, When they silence the opposition.  In the article I discussed the so called Fairness Doctrine and the less offensive sounding Localism.  Either way it goes, the democrats are looking to limit the effect of conservative talk radio hosts to challenge the performance of Congress and the White House.  Funny, one of the ten pillars of communism is: 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.  The Constitution on the other hand states,

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 Make no mistake, the Democrat Party leadership has made ample comments directed at silencing the opposition.  Witness the recent demonization of Rush Limbaugh.  This is a very popular tactic of the leftists in this country.  Allegations and screaming flies through the air in character assassination style.  Once out there, it cannot be called back in the sound bite society we live in.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment is under constant threat and usually exists in a perilous state when Democrats are in control in both State and Federal governments.  I find it odd that people are willing to vote away a right that is actually in the constitution but will fight for supposed rights that are not.  For instance a vote against abortion or gay marriage is somehow voting away the rights of others.  Those items are not in the Constitution and should be State issues.  Instead we have the tyranny of the Feds and Judges step in and impose their will based on their own agenda.  In the case of an amendment being passed at the state level, a challenge will made saying that we can't vote away individual rights.  Yet the right to bear arms is regularly squelched and it does exist in the Constitution.

I encourage you to watch this administration with an eye to their behavior and attitudes.  Everything seems to be a crisis and legislation needs to be rushed through.  When they say it is for our sake, for the good of the people or the nation, beware!  The smoke screens are many as they mask what is going on.  They cannot afford to let the people see what is really in this legislation because the result would be outrage that would stall the agenda they are trying to push through.  In the meantime our rights and liberties will be eroded as they continue to change our society forever.

Just as a point of interest, I encourage you to review the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto.

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

"So, is the U.S. a "free country" today?  Hardly!  Not compared to what it once was.  Yet, very few Americans today challenge these Marxist institutions, and there are virtually no politicians calling for their repeal or even gradual phase-out."

I encourage you to visit the site for more reading on each of these planks.  Some are seeming all too familiar while others are on the horizon, being strengthened as our legislators throw money at every issue thinking that they are somehow being creative while they are really making us subservient to world rule as a debtor nation.  The collapse of our monetary system will be the next "bubble" to burst and will provide the needed impetus to transfer what little wealth we have left to others in the world.  Those who say that president Obama doesn't have Marxist tendencies ignore his past and most likely have not read the Communist Manifesto.  Yet, without knowledge of what Marxism entails, they will vehemently deny that he is Marxist.  It is looked upon as a derogatory term rather than a definition of his ideology.

The foreign holdings of Treasury securities in January was $3.072 trillion.  With $739.6 billion of our debt owned by China, and $634.8 owned by Japan, a large amount of external pressure is placed upon our financial decision makers to ensure the security of these foreign investors.  (The above numbers are as of January, 2009.)  This is evidenced by the comments of China's Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.  "We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried," he said.  We may have reached the point where they stop buying notes and possibly only invest in hard assets.

The total U.S. debt is really $65.5 trillion dollars which exceeds the gross domestic product of the entire world.  While President Obama promises transparency and boasts about including the cost of war in the numbers, he still omits the unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare.  Contrary to popular belief, there is no "lock box" or funds set aside for these liabilities.  The current obligations and the proposed social spending basically puts the United States in a bankrupt situation.

The technology bubble burst and the economy was affected.  The housing bubble popped and the economy was devastated.  Will the dollar be the next bubble to rupture which will destroy what little is left of the economy?  The collapse would have global ramifications as the value of the dollar plummets much like currencies of the past.  In an April, 2008, report, economist John Williams states, "The U.S. economy is in an intensifying inflationary recession that eventually will evolve into a hyperinflationary great depression. Hyperinflation could be experienced as early as 2010, if not before, and likely no more than a decade down the road. The U.S. government and Federal Reserve already have committed the system to this course through the easy politics of a bottomless pocketbook, the servicing of big-moneyed special interests, and gross mismanagement."

The sudden spike in gold prices tells me that the people with money aren't liking what they see the Fed doing as they move away from the dollar.  Add to this the upcoming G20 meeting reports, and people with cash are getting nervous.  "Increasingly, the International Monetary Fund, with the support of the United States and Russia, appears positioned to launch a one-world currency at the upcoming G-20 meeting in London. "  The international safety net they are looking for is, "a super-reserve currency widely accepted by the whole of the international community."

Global warming, global cooling, global change and global chaos are all ways of transferring the wealth from the U.S. to other countries.  Included in this scheme is the cap and trade plan.  As our companies are taxed for excessive carbon output, the costs of energy and products to the general public will jump dramatically.  The funds will be transferred to someone who did not earn them, even if it is the government.  It is basically a tax hike on every citizen much like a sales and use tax.  Corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them through to the consumers through price increases.  So much for no tax hikes on 95% of working Americans, which in itself is an impossibility if all the programs are to be paid for rather than adding to the debt.  A Wall Street Journal article states, "Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters," not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity -- in this case the right to emit carbon -- and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag -- now Mr. Obama's budget director -- told Congress last year that 'Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.'"

The Associated Press reports, "Under the lease, Spanish-Australian consortium Cintra-Macquarie will pay the state $3.8 billion up front and will be responsible for operating and maintaining the highway. It will get to keep the toll revenue it collects."  This is a lease, not a sale, but a Spanish company and an Australian bank are reaping the profits of U.S. property.  "The two companies have been active in the U.S. road business. In 2004, the two inked a 99-year lease for the 7.8-mile elevated Chicago Skyway. Last year, Macquarie completed its acquisition of the Dulles Greenway outside Washington, D.C. And Cintra, which manages toll roads in Europe and the Americas, is a strategic partner to the Texas state government in the planned Trans-Texas Corridor. There are likely more such deals to come. "  And what about the water?  "Thames Water was fully acquired by the German energy conglomerate RWE AG in January 2003. RWE is one of the world’s largest energy giants with more than 640 subsidiaries worldwide and annual revenues of more than $50 billion. RWE is in turn acquiring American Water Works through Thames Water—the largest publicly held U.S.-based water utility with 16 million customers in 29 states and three Canadian provinces. Thames is the operational manager of RWE’s international water business, including the management of the U.S. properties owned by American Water Works. Thames/RWE is gaining yet more control of U.S. water and wastewater services by entering into an agreement with Operations Management International (OMI), a Denver (US)-based firm. The corporate web is spun."

And lets not forget the economic and social impact of what amounts to open borders.  Illegal aliens that use our resources such as health care plus the drugs and other criminal activities of some.  The taxing of border patrol and law enforcement is an issue in southwestern states.  This block of people is seen as votes as amnesty will garner loyalty from the masses.

Has the country passed the point of no return?  The current administration criticized and campaigned against deficit spending.  The problem is that the problem has gotten worse as the same Congress is in charge of the purse strings and they now have a willing accomplice in the White House.  This problem is bigger than anyone is letting on concerning our national security.  Our adversaries have the strings to pull that will influence our national policies, possibly even more so than the demands of the citizens of These United States of America.

In the continuing redistribution of wealth, which President Obama approved of in the campaign, Congress has redistributed the responsibility for health benefit costs from some individuals to some corporations.  The following excerpts are from a Wall Street Journal article by M.P. McQueen, February 19, 2009.

Congress has just given a big assist to millions of jobless Americans facing a tough decision: Do they reach into their wallet to continue health insurance coverage with their old employer or not?

As part of the economic-stimulus package signed into law this week, the federal government will provide a nine-month subsidy covering 65% of the Cobra premium for people who qualify.

Employers may not be happy with the expansion of the Cobra program, as some fear it will raise administrative and other costs. "The new law will impose very large costs on employers," says John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, an independent think tank in Dallas. "It will make it more expensive for employers to provide health insurance. And, for those who do, it will make it more expensive to hire new workers."

The first question that comes to my mind is, why would any employer choose to provide medical insurance plans if the government continues to move along this path?  If an employee is involuntarily terminated, there was a reason for doing so which results in the lowering of overhead unless a replacement is hired at an equal or higher rate.  What if the employee was released for reasons that were adverse to the company?  Should the employer be saddled with the 65% costs?  I would think employers, especially the small businesses, may begin to consider eliminating the health benefits package and offer a cash subsidy for employees to purchase their own coverage.

The anti-business atmosphere will steadily add to the cost side of the ledger.  If this doesn't drive business from the market, it will definitely add to the price of goods and services to the consumers.  I don't know if the legislators really consider the unintended consequences for the actions they take.  They either don't know or don't care.  This is another case of hurting many to help a few.  Every regulation or law they enact that adds costs to a company's bottom line, increases the price consumers pay at the register.  This is only avoided when the government take the dramatic step of price controls.  When price controls begin, the profit margin for companies shrink as their costs are increased.  There comes a tipping point where it is no longer worth keeping open the doors of the establishment.

This is only the beginning.  If you are unconcerned because it doesn't affect you, be aware that your turn will come.  When the health care system is completely controlled by the federal government, the companies will be required to pay into the system if they are not providing coverage on their own.  Again, these cost increases will be passed onto the consumers.  We are all affected by these kind of actions.  Even the folks on welfare will have less to spend when the prices are raised.  Don't get too excited about the $13 per week in less withholding tax.  When prices go up that money will be eaten up quickly.

Whether it be the so called Fairness Doctrine or Localism, when the government employs censorship, it is setting itself up to control information.  Does the TASS News Agency ring a bell?  Or how about Al Jazeera?  President Obama has said that he opposes reenacting the Fairness Doctrine, but in this age of double speak, he does not outright tell his party or fellow leftists to leave the issue alone.  If Congress leaves it alone, there is still the FCC which can implement the policy.  If not them, local boards could be established to review broadcast content to make sure locals are heard rather than nationally syndicated shows.  In any case, the government controlling the political opinion being broadcast is one step in contolling the population.  Many of President Obama's FCC appointees are in favor of the Fairness Doctrine as is the Congressional leadership.

But why would the Government want to control what the people hear?  The reason the recent rash of spending bills have been pushed through quickly, always a crisis that needs immediate attention, is that the longer the wait for the vote, the more the people learn, the more they get upset, the more they speak up, the more they contact their legislators.  As each day passes, the public opinion drops and the vote is made more difficult.  As the ruling party tries to push through its agenda, they do not want to be questioned or defied.

Funny, one of the ten pillars of communism is:
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Remain alert to what happens over the coming year in this matter.  Will the same people that complained about President Bush and his policies and civil rights voice their objections to those of President Obama?  If they do, will the media do any reporting on it?

Consider NBC who is widely reported to be in the tank for President Obama, especially MSNBC during the campaign and election.  NBC is owned by GE, whose CEO is Jeffrey R. Immelt since September 7, 2001.  According to his bio at GE.com, Mr. Immelt is on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.  He was also named a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.  Get the picture?  And what of the $140 billion dollar bailout loan from the government?  Who owns whom?

There are more examples to be had, but let's consider a famous quote from the 1940's.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Back in early May, 2008, then candidate Barack Obama said, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”

I understand it was campaign talk and the comparison to the Soviet Union was somewhat accurate, but it was naive to make the comparison since the Soviet Union had gone down and Iran was on its way to nuclear weapons.  I truly hope that President Obama's eyes have been opened by the daily briefings he receives.  I hope he is taking Iran much more seriously, and despite his desire to talk, he needs to see Iran as the same evil empire that President Reagan saw the Soviet Union to be.

Not only is Iran developing their own nukes, but they continue to feed the Middle East disruptors such as Hamas.  Now they are into space age technology despite international sanctions.  Read this interesting story from PRNewswire that speaks of Iran's capabilities. 

"Iran's historic first successful space launch on February 2nd, placing its domestically grown satellite 'OMID' into an elliptical orbit around the Earth which has reached heights of 224 miles and speeds of 4.6 miles a second, is currently being tracked by NORAD. OMID has made multiple overflights of the United States and will continue to do so."

"Iran, with its new knowledge and demonstrated performance capability of its SLV coupled with its already-existing industry base that has produced close to a 1,000 short- and medium-range ballistic missiles will scale up production over the next year to two years to produce ICBMs capable of striking any target around the world Iran deems necessary for its national security. Every major city in the United States and Europe could be targeted with a warhead and if Iran continues unabated to develop a nuclear weapon, that warhead would be a weapon of mass destruction."

So as we spend ourselves into bondage with trillions of dollars in debt, we hamper our ability to defend ourselves.  In the third debate with Senator McCain, Senator Obama said, "America cannot maintain a strong defense without a strong economy".  I hope his deficit spending doesn't destroy the dollar, or we will be out of luck as both the economy and defense will suffer.  I also expect to see the defense budget cut 10% as is the case most often with Democrat administrations.  Is this the time to do that with troops in the field?

Did you know that we were in a crisis?  If not, President Obama will sure let you know.  Really, is there anyone that isn't aware of the financial and housing meltdowns?  It would seem that good leadership would lead.  Where is it?  President Obama used the word crisis a total of twenty four times in one speech this past Friday.  "I'm here today to talk about a crisis unlike any we've ever known", he began in a speech at Phoenix, Arizona, on the home mortgage crisis.  Mentioning it as the topic is fine, but beating the drum so hard will not encourage a single soul.  Where is the positive spin to encourage consumer confidence?  Politicians are widely known for spin, so where is it when we actually need a little.  In our sound-bite society, positive spin may encourage the so-called main street to loosen the purse strings a bit, the real key to ending a recession.  All that was heard in the campaign was "hope and change, "yes we can", and "eight years of failed Bush policy."  What we get is doom and gloom, only the government can, and more of the same.  The same Democrat controlled Congress that spent money, gave bail outs, and promoted the bad lending practices in the Community Reinvestment Act, is the same Congress that President Obama handed the reigns of leadership to so they could pass the biggest spending bill in history.  And we haven't seen the budget yet.  Where is the leadership in giving the farthest left politicians, Reed and Pelosi, the freedom to spend on every pet project they've been seeking to finance over the past years?

In the same speech, President Obama states, "Our housing crisis was born of eroding home values, but also of the erosion of our common values. It was brought about by big banks that traded in risky mortgages in return for profits that were literally too good to be true; by lenders who knowingly took advantage of homebuyers; by homebuyers who knowingly borrowed too much from lenders; by speculators who gambled on rising prices; and by leaders in our nation's capital who failed to act amidst a deepening crisis."  I guess Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had nothing to do with failure of oversight and promoting poor policies.  There were leaders who attempted to reign in the problems over the past couple years, including the Bush White House, but Barney Frank did well to block that failing to see a problem in regulation.  And President Obama, then Senator Obama, never lifted a finger to act against the rising problem.  He is not above it all as he was part of the majority party in Congress.  Where was the leadership then?  Where is the leadership now?

Hope and change is really the same old, same old.  Liberal spending after campaigning against the evils of President Bush's deficit spending.  $785 billion dollars, borrowed dollars even before the budget cash to be spent, is definitely deficit spending.  And remember, the Democrats, President Obama's party, was in control of the purse strings, not President Bush.  My point isn't to defend President Bush.  My point is that we are seeing the same old spending.  Spending to fix a problem that was caused by spending.  Where is the change?  And about the hope, does it really exist when we are told that the government is the only party that can get us out of this recession?  The same people that want to spend us out of it are the people that made the policies that helped us get into the big downturn.  Good leadership would be attempting to pump up the nation's producers and labor force, encouraging people to produce goods and loosen the purse strings to help the economy.  With every speech President Obama makes, he causes people to wonder how much worse things will get and to hang onto whatever cash they have.  It is depressing for people to think our only hopes hang on the government solving the problem.

And how does it help those with money to invest to loosen their hold on the cash when President Obama talks about raising taxes on them?  The Washington Post reports that he plans to reduce the deficit by the end of his first term.
"Obama proposes to dramatically reduce those numbers, said White House budget director Peter Orszag: "We will cut the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term." The plan would keep the deficit hovering near $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, but shows it dropping to $533 billion by 2013, he said -- still high but a more manageable 3 percent of the economy.

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes continued spending on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is lower than the nearly $190 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year."

He talks about raising taxes on the people that have the money while trying to work out of a recession.  I fail to see how this type of a message will make any entrepreneur feel comfortable about risking funds and then having more of the profits, if there are any, pilfered by the tax collector so the politicians can give it to those in society who didn't risk anything to earn the profits.  The entitlement attitude of today is being fed by the government.  Spread the wealth as he told Joe the plumber.

Hope and change, where for art thou?

For more encouragement, read the comments of Soros.  Maybe this is where President Obama gets his material.

Soros sees no bottom for world financial "collapse"

While reading an article about Great Britain and their financial woes, I was impressed with how familiar the story seemed.  The parallels are uncanny, and with recent news on Mexico's potential collapse, will we hit the trifecta?  It could be worth wagering on, if only there were a stable monetary unit to cash in with.  The article is Gordon Brown brings Britain to the edge of bankruptcy.

The article mentions a number of things that hit close to home beginning with, "With every step taken by the Government as it tries frantically to prop up the British banking system."  Great Britain is much farther down the socialistic road than we are, but we are positioned to catch up quickly.  There are plenty of banking systems being "propped up" presently and the gloom of the artificial cash looms on the horizon.  What happens when all debt comes due?  Can this line also be applied to the United States?  "Thanks to the arrogance, hubristic strutting and serial incompetence of the Government and a group of bankers, the possibility of national bankruptcy is not unrealistic."

"He turned on the fountain of cheap money and encouraged the country to swim in it. House prices rose, debt went through the roof and the illusion won elections."  Does this tune sound familiar?  The problem is that the bubble pops eventually.  With more artificial support, the bubble gets bigger and the burst is more damaging for all involved.

"The Government's bail-out of the banks in October with £37 billion of taxpayers' money was supposed to have "saved the world", according to the PM, but now it is clear that it has not even saved the banks. Our money kept the show on the road for only three months."  How much do we trust the U.S. banking system today?  What of all those "toxic" loans that still need to be covered?  Add to it the bankrupt Social Security system, the proposed 401k takeover and the $850 billion dollar spending bill that is inevitable sooner or later.

Even passing by the "Liberal" reference in the next quote, ask yourself if this rings a bell with our banking and auto bailouts.  "As the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman Vince Cable asks: where has the £37 billion gone? The answer, as Cable knows, is that it has disappeared down the plug hole."  And, "Meanwhile, the assets are falling in value. This matters, because post-nationalisation these liabilities are now yours and mine."

What will be our fate?  "Add to that record consumer indebtedness and Britain becomes extremely vulnerable. The markets have worked this out ahead of the politicians, as usual, and are wondering what to do next. If they decide our nation is a basket case, they will make it so."  Of course, with the government intervention, the markets will undoubtedly sink farther than they would if they were left to their own devices.  As for Gordon Brown, the messiah is where he may be hanging his hopes.  "In this gloom, the Prime Minister has but one slender hope: that somehow, by force of personality, the new President Obama engineers a rapid American recovery restoring global confidence, energising the markets and making us all forget this bad dream."

As we worry about bail outs and trillion dollar spending bills as our economic system devolves further into a socialistic system, Henry Kissinger is talking about the opportunity for a global response.  Will President-elect Obama listen to him and believe he has the correct solution?  I remember being told in the campaign that we are global citizens.  We are being told the economic recession is a global crisis.  We have been inundated with stories of global warming, which interestingly is being morphed into climate change which would maintain the crisis and the transfer of control to a global solution.

In Kissinger's op-ed he states, "Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled."   He goes on about the number of transformations occurring at one time including political and financial events.  The result, he says, is either chaos or a new international order.  He cites institutional and economical global reach combined with the speed of communication as reasons of the current globalization phenomenon.  He states that global order is now needed, replacing policies driven by domestic politics.

Kissinger says that rescue packages have done little to solve the problems at hand and have mainly served to stem panic among the populations.  He continues, "International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves."  He says only one of two ways can harmonize the political and financial systems.  The first is "by creating an international political regulatory system", the second "by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures" perhaps into regional units.  He writes, "Not since the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.  The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy."

Will this be the next rush to fix it now just as we saw in the financial system crisis when we had to throw 350 billion dollars at the problem immediately to prevent a complete melt down?  Is another catastophic event looming on the horizon?  Kissinger adds, "The cooperative mood of the moment needs to be channeled into a grand strategy going beyond the controversies of the recent past."  Apparently no time can be wasted due to the current popularity of the incoming President.  The United States has held onto sovereignty so far which contrasts Europe, which is in limbo between nationalism and the evolving union of states.

Kissinger is not a lone voice on the matter.  In his article Obama to put world ahead of America, Henry Lamb writes, "Much of the world sees Obama not simply as the first black president, but as the first president to accept global governance to be more important than U.S. governance. His Berlin speech last July promised "a new global partnership" and a new "global commitment" to "save the planet."  To implement his commitment to global governance, Obama has nominated Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state. In addition to her book, "It Takes a Village," Hillary is on record in support of the World Federalist Association's efforts to establish a world government, and publicly applauded Walter Cronkite's receipt of the WFA "Global Governance" award".  Obama's globalist wish list , an article by Phyllis Schlafly, caught my attention with the threat of the elimination of Mother's Day.  The article actually speaks to the U.N. treaty that would lead to its elimination, as well as the accompanying international taxes that could be levied.  Then there is the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  The following is from the article

Gordon Brown wants to rewrite the rules of capitalism of October16, 2008.  "The Prime Minister wants dozens of world leaders to meet for a major one-off summit where they would rewrite the rules of international capitalism that have stood since 1944."  And, "Speaking at a summit of European Union leaders in Brussels, Mr Brown said the recent crisis proves the need for much more international co-operation on the regulation of banks and other financial insitutions.  He said: "We now have global financial markets, global corporations, global financial flows. But what we do not have is anything other than national and regional regulation and supervision." "