Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Is Barack Obama Crazy?

From the Whistleblower magazine from WND. (This little excerpt delivered directly to my mailbox...)

By Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily

"Is Barack Obama Crazy?" is a pretty provocative subject for an email.
I admit, I don't know the answer to the question.
But, given Barack Obama's actions in the first few months of his administration, it's a valid question.
And so, the May issue of WorldNetDaily's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine takes it on.
Let's examine some of the evidence:
  • If you held a job and people were questioning your qualifications, and all you had to do to put an end to those questions, not to mention more than a dozen lawsuits filed against you, was to produce a valid birth certificate you claimed to possess, would you refuse to take that simple step? Or would you, as Obama has done, spend at least $1 million to fight the lawsuits? I think most people would agree that someone who chose the latter is either crazy or doesn't have a valid birth certificate.
  • Let's say you got a job in which you succeeded someone with whom you disagreed passionately.Would you try to have that person prosecuted over those differences, knowing that some day, someone with whom you disagree would succeed you and possibly contemplate the same course of action? That's what Obama talked about doing in the case of his disagreement with George W. Bush over the practice of coercive interrogations – policies, I might point out, that were employed not just by his immediate predecessor, but by every war-time president in the history of the United States.
  • Or what do you make of Obama's efforts to ban the use of the words "terror" and "terrorism" from his administration's lexicon? The administration prefers to call attacks on terrorists "overseas contingency operations." And terrorist attacks at home are referred to as "man-caused disasters." These new terms are apparently considered less offensive to terrorists.
  • While there are hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens voluntarily serving in arms overseas, the Obama administration put out a report to law enforcement agencies throughout the country to be wary of returning veterans, because they might be more inclined to get involved in "right-wing extremist" activities.
  • Obama presides – legitimately or illegitimately – over a nation founded on the ideals of "independence" and "national sovereignty." Yet, in a speech given in Prague, what was his prescription for making the world a better place? "All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime," he said.
  • How about his solution to an economic crisis spurred by too much indebtedness? More debt.
  • Let's say you're the first black president. Do you appoint a black attorney general who indicts the people who just elected you as a "nation of cowards" on matters of race?
  • Imagine appointing to a top policy position at the Defense Department, a columnist from the Los Angeles Times who believes U.S. policies were to blame for the 9/11 attacks by al-Qaida. That would be Rosa Brooks, who also previously referred to Obama's immediate predecessor as "our torturer in chief " and a "psychotic who need(s) treatment" while comparing Bush's arguments for waging a war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler's use of political propaganda.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
I don't know if any of these actions mean the president is crazy. But I do know they mean he is dangerous to the security and prosperity of the nation.
For a more complete diagnosis, I refer you to the May issue of WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine, titled NARCISSIST IN CHIEF: Experts explain what makes Barack Obama tick.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

'Preventive Detention'

President Obama is considering something called 'preventive detention'.

Basically, we're going to be incarcerating people before they've actually done anything, on the logic that they probably will do something in the future, so we have to take care of it. By locking them up indefinitely.

Oh yay.

The more I hear, the more I begin to think that, with all due respect to his position, that he really doesn't know what he's doing. And I suppose he can be excused for that- he is relatively, and comparatively inexperienced. However, when you're the President, it kind of helps to have a game plan hashed out.

Before you start making yourself look silly by giving 'yes,no,maybe' on Gitmo, torture, and sundry other issues. Or bowing to Middle Eastern kings.

Anyway, back on topic- I think 'preventive detention' is a bad idea because:
  • It gives to much opportunity for abuses
  • People will begin to see ghosts everywhere...and then we'll all be in jail
  • 'Thoughtpolice' and 'thoughtcrime' anyone? After all, how can they tell you're going to commit a crime...unless they know what you're thinking?

Korea, Nukes, & the UN

HELP!! North Korea is going to get us...or maybe not. I mean, considering their nukes aren't even that powerful. At least, not substantially more powerful than they were two years ago.

Besides, who cares if anybody has nukes?

So what if they decide they want to have weapons that could wipe out the entire world?

North Korea is a sovereign nation (my, what a concept), and we have no business telling them what they can and cannot do in their own country.

Am I a bit scared they have nukes? Yes. Do I think nukes are bad? Um...maybe. Do I think America and/or the UN should be forcing them to give their nukes up? No.

I understand that NKorea had a treaty with several other countries to get rid of their nuclear program.

But why do we care? Why should anyone care? So they decided to get rid of the stupid treaty (which was probably a bad idea in the first place), and go their own way. So?

Let me tell all of the wonderful 'peace' people out there- I am not adverse to peace. However, I find it hard to believe that Obama is for peace- despite his pressure to get rid of nukes- when he's pushed yet another war in Afghanistan. Yeah, that's real peace-lovin'!

Let's just let every country have nukes. If one country actually sets one off, that country will be in trouble. If everybody had nukes, we wouldn't have to worry about nukes, because each country would be too afraid to set them off, for fear of the repurcussions.

'Nuff said.

Monday, May 25, 2009

HR 985

HR 985- an act that will make it nearly impossible for anyone to demand any government employee's personal records. Including President Obama's.

The premise? "To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media."

This bill could conceivably be nicknamed the 'Obama Birth Certificate Protection Act'. Because I'm pretty sure that's why- as WND launches it's 'Where's the Birth Certificate?' campaign- steps are being taken to protect the One from that horrible media.

According to WND, the 'Certification of Live Birth'- from Hawaii- doesn't prove his actual birth place, as it's more of a 'short-hand' certificate. The other, longer certificate- the one that would actually prove, once and for all whether he is a US citizen, is the one we need.

I don't understand why Obama doesn't bring his certificate out. If he is a US citizen, what does he have to fear? If he was born in Hawaii, why doesn't he just bring it out, and prove it? He could make the naysayers look horrible, make himself look better, and the conflict would be resolved.

Instead, he insists on hiding it away, just exacerbating his own situation. Because after all, when someone hides something, they generally have a good reason- and the reason in this instance is all to easy to find, if you really wish to.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Gun Bill Passed

I know you're all tired of gloom-and-doom me, so here's some good news!

The House passed a bill yesterday that will allow gun owners to carry concealed, loaded guns into national parks. It passed 279-147, with the support of the Republicans (of course), and some Democrats.

The only bad thing? It was added as some twisted sort of pork into the credit card bill.

Beef to get unwilling senators to vote 'aye'.

So, there's some good news, and a little bit of doom-gloom at the end, just to show that I'm still here. ;)

Read the original story here.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Financial 'Watchdog'

Whole story here

Yet more government agencies are coming our way, with the proposed creation of a regulatory commission that would oversee the bad financial decisions of dumb people.

But, of course, that's not what they're calling.

Oh no. It would have 'broad authority' to 'protect consumers' from various financial matters, such as mortgages, credit cards, and mutual funds.

Great. I always wanted to be sheltered from such things. I mean, I know that I'm just too stupid to know that a mortgage costs on average $1,000 a month. I'm also too stupid to know that credit cards are horrible, and should never be used by the irresponsible.

Yes, I'm just soo stupid Big Brother! Help me! Save me from my own stupid mistakes!!

Give me a break. This is just another excuse to eat up taxpayer money, and to usurp yet more authority over the people of America.

From the article- "The proposal could centralize enforcement of existing laws and create a vehicle for imposing tougher rules."

Um...and this is a good thing? Apparently so, especially when you're a Fascist Centralist. Or Globalist.

These laws and agencies are stupid. Like I said, these are just excuses to expand government power, and bring us more under it's sway. That is the goal here. Not to 'protect' us. Not to keep us safe. It is to bind us.

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither, and will lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Woman Fined...

Because she wasn't holding onto the escalator rail.

Yes, that's correct.

A Vancouver woman was detained and fined $100 because she didn't hang onto the escalator rail.

My first thought was 'is this for real?!' My next was 'you have got to be kidding me.'

I mean, come on! Fining a woman because she refused to hang on because she was busy? Maybe this is just my American prejudice against any kind of infringement on rights, but this is just nuts.

From the article- "In the Vancouver region, officials will soon launch a campaign to discourage running, sliding down banisters and other risky behaviour."

....Okie dokie then.

You know what? The entire world has gone nuts, en masse.

Credit Cards and Emissions

Credit Card Regulations

Now the government is putting caps on how the credit card companies can punish the people who don't pay them.

Oh beautiful.

And, since the companies can't go after those who they should be going after- those that don't pay, and hence cost them money- they're going to raise everyone's interest rates.

Wow. I like it.

Now, I don't like credit cards. I am not going to get a credit card if at all possible, since I think it's dumb to put yourself in that much debt for something you could just as easily buy outright. But it's wrong to go after credit card companies, and in turn pass on more costs to the consumer.

Furthermore, it's unconstitutional. It's wrong to go after a market force like credit cards or the companies that give them out, even if what they're doing is kind of unethical. It's the consumer's fault for getting the credit card in the first place, then filling it up with thousands of dollars of debt.

Regulations on Car Exhaust Emissions

Yes, you read that right.

Our wonderful President Obama wants to put regulations on how much exhaust can come out of your tailpipe, to reduce greenhouse gases, y'know. This will go wonderfully with Cap and Trade, since CAT will discourage people from driving period, and this will just reinforce that!

Next, they propose to increase the fuel efficiency standards to 35.5 mpg for passenger cars and pickups by 2016.

Oh joy. Let's just burden the car companies even more.

Fuel efficiency ratings are rising. Without the government's help. You know why? Because the market wants it. It's the same reason why McDonalds has started selling apples and salads- the consumer wants it, those products are popular, and so they are sold.

That is the way things are supposed to be. It's the most perfect system ever conceived. Except, possibly, Communism, but that's because the government controls everything. And it would work great except for the fact that, oh, everyone's poor, except for those that control everything. Which would be about .000001% of the population.

These regulations will increase the cost of cars by almost $1,300. $600 of that would be purely from the increase cited above. The rest? The result of previous energy policy. (Bush, Clinton, etc.)

"Consumers can retain choice but for more fuel-efficient cars. Every single category of car will be more efficient." (Unnamed official in Washington)

Oh great!!! Just the choice I always wanted!

Now, it isn't that I don't mind fuel efficient vehicles. It's that I dislike being forced to choose one. It's wrong. The government has no right to determine what I can and cannot choose. Period.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Government Dictionary

So, as a sort of 'sequel' to my earlier post, Congressional Code, here, for your hilarious enjoyment, I give you the Government Dictionary!

Disclaimer: this document is entirely fictional, and is only indicative of my political views, not necessarily those of Obama, Souter, Bugs Bunny, or any other government employee. Thank you.

Constitution-n. (con-sti-too-shun) Refers to a document written in 1780-something, which allegedly details what the government does. It has been relegated to the Vault, known to lie somewhere in Disney Land.

Constitutionalist-n. (con-sti-too-shun-i-lust) Refers to a group of people that follow the Constitution. Also see Terrorist, Constitution.

Corruption-v. (co-rup-shun) Refers to a system whereby individuals, usually within government circles, receive money and/or goods and services for voting for or against certain things, and/or saying/thinking certain things.

Democrat-n. (dem-o-crat) A collective body of supposed individuals who, while they believe they think for themselves, are actually quite integrated into the System.

Federal Reserve Bank-n. (fed-ur-el-re-zer-ve-bank) A privately owned banking company that is in charge of all printing and distribution of funds in the United States of America.

Independent-n. (indu-pen-dent) Someone who is, well, independent; aka Them. They are uncontrollable, hence they must be regarded as dangerous. Also see Terrorist.

Libertarian-n. (lib-er-tear-ien) One of Them. Otherwise known as The Others, The Crazies, or other assorted terms. These people are extremely dangerous, because they actually think. Also see Terrorist.

Party-n. (pa-rt-y) An organization of individuals, thinking or not, who follow a certain doctrine. Exceptions: Independents.

President-n. (prez-i-dent) The individual in charge of the executive branch of the government of the United States of America. Usually a member of either major Party, the President spends his or her time signing checks and thousand-page pieces of legislation, in between giving speeches and being the leader of the free world.

Republican-n. (re-pub-li-can) A collective body of supposed individuals who, while they believe they think for themselves, are actually quite integrated into the System.

Stimulus-n. (stim-u-luss) Refers to a process whereby various amounts of money are sent out to various private businesses, from another private business, by the government, to stimulate the Economy. Also see Federal Reserve Bank.

System-n. (si-stum) Refers to the way things are done by the propagators of the System- otherwise referred to as politicians or Party men.

Terrorist-n. (tear-o-rist) Someone who does not agree with the current administration and/or policies. Sometimes referred to as dissidents, reactionary elements, Them, or Libertarians.

Them-n. (them) 'Them' refers to the assorted independent parties that have sprung up in America.

The People-n. (thu-pe-pull) Refers to a group of people, composing roughly 99.9% of the population of the United States of America, who reside within the borders of the United States of America, and owe allegiance to various Parties and, in many cases, the System.

Saudi 'Killer Chip'

I read something frightening today- apparently, the Saudis invented a chip that was nicknamed a 'Killer chip' by a Swiss tabloid.

This chip would be a GPS- a mobile GPS that is implanted in one's body. Who would carry these chips? "The inventor said the chip could be used to track terrorists, criminals, fugitives, illegal immigrants, political dissidents, domestic servants and foreigners overstaying their visas."



Now, let's think about the government's definition of those terms.

The inventor approached Germany, trying to get a patent. Unfortunately, Germany turned them down. This time.

How much longer is it before we find ourselves being implanted by chips such as these?

So, the nickname 'Killer chip' came from the fact that a lovely little surprise could be added- a dose of cyanide that, if released, would kill the implanted...victim, or whatever you want to call him/her.

Lovely, isn't it?

And this is the kind of stuff men come up with.

Now, I understand that we're probably a long way off from such things happening here. I hope. But at the same time, we're not that far away.

Here's a link to the original story, if anyone's interested.

Friday, May 8, 2009


Has anyone else heard anything concerning this? Basically, President Obama's plan is to put limits on those pesky carbon emissions. Companies will have to buy carbon credits at an auction- and individuals and businesses will have to pay a tax for their 'emissions'.

Let me explain this- a quick economics lesson. When businesses are forced to pay thousands- or millions- of dollar per unit of 'carbon emissions', that will impair their ability to make money. They'll have to divert yet more of their profits to taxes. Hence, they will pass on the cost to the consumer- via higher prices- and workers- via layoffs.

What happened to the 'unemployment crisis' or 'easing the burden of the working man'?

Hundreds of people will end up without jobs. This will also hit my area hard, which relies on coal a lot, especially for our electricity. If those plants shut down- and they will- at least a few thousand people will be out of work. If we don't have electricity, a lot of the other businesses will shut down- places like Best Buy and the mall. That will throw thousands more out of work. When that's gone, more businesses will go out.

It will continue to escalate so, until our town begins to look like a ghost town.

But Obama and his cohorts- er, I mean, Congress- don't seem to realize this. All they see is the revenue they will garner. Either that, or the new world dollar they'll have when our economy comes crashing down, and they can blame it on 'capitalism'.

Now, I'm a bit curious to see how they're going to spin this. "We've reached our goal of reducing carbon emissions by 15%....but people are starving!"

Thursday, May 7, 2009

The Audacity of Hope

I recently finished reading President Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. I must say that my first impression was not good. Neither was my second. Or my third. Or my fourth, fifth, or sixth.

All around, this book might appeal to some kind of far-left democrat, but otherwise, it's just as bad as I've heard it was. After reading it, I am firmly convinced that he is a Communist.

Now, I do not say this lightly. As you know, I am not the kind of person who says such things lightly. (Well, maybe sometimes, but only in jest.) Now, after having read his book, I am sure. There are too many tidbits of Communist agenda-thinking to quote them all here. So I won't. I'll write my essay on it, then post that.

His book starts out with a chapter titled, tellingly, 'Republicans and Democrats'. Now if that doesn't sound partisan enough for you, let me tell you one thing: the entire chapter is partisan. So much for the 'bipartisan' President we all wanted.

Everything that has gone wrong in the country since Lincoln is the Republicans' fault. Anything good that happened is the Democrats' doing. That is how partisan-divided he is. And the Democrats can do no wrong.

For instance- on page 39, he states- "The Republican Party has been able to consistently win elections not by expanding its base but by vilifying Democrats, driving wedges into the electorate, energizing its right wing, and disciplining those who stray from the party line."

And...Democrats don't do those things? Give me a break.

In Chapter three, he speaks about the Constitution.

That chapter was pretty infuriating. His whole gist was that the Constitution is a 'living document'. In other words- a nice token piece. In fact, he spends almost the entire chapter talking not about the Constitution but about some Senator friend, the filibuster, and more partisan issues.

Finally, he gets down to it, and then he has nothing more illuminating to offer than the fact that he thinks the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly think that a Republic that worked in their time could work now. It can. It can, and it will, and it would be great if you'd just shrink government back to it's proscribed size!

But what was really disturbing was his passage on page 91- "They conclude that the Constitution itself was largely a happy accident... that we can never hope to discern the Founders' 'original intentions' since the intentions of Jefferson were never those of Hamilton, and those of Hamilton differed greatly from those of Adams; that because the 'rules' of the Constitution were contingent on time and place and the ambitions of the men who drafted them, our interpretation of the rules will necessarily reflect the same contingency, the same raw competition, the same imperatives- cloaked in high-minded phrasing- of those factions that ultimately prevail. ... so I see a certain appeal to this shattering of myth, to the temptation to believe that the constitutional text doesn't constrain us much at all, so that we are free to assert our own values unencumbered by fidelity to the stodgy traditions of a distant past."

Not only is that an incredible run-on sentence, but the part I have boldened is rather frightening. The idea that somehow we shouldn't be 'constrained' by the 'stodgy traditions' of the Founding Fathers is frightening.

And that our President believes this? It's getting scarier by the second!

Another thing he does constantly throughout his book that annoys me to no end- he constantly compares himself to people like Lincoln, FDR, and Martin Luther King.


His chapter on 'Opportunity' was probably the worst bit of socialist-economy drivel I've ever read. I won't bore you- or infuriate you- with the details/quotes, but let me say that this was what convinced me. Every other page it was 'spread the wealth around'. I can't say as I've ever seen so much 'spreading around' as is in his book. Of course, I've never read Karl Marx, so I can't say definitively. Karl Marx might have him beat by a few. He bashes the 'Ownership Society'- basically, the government isn't going to help you- as being unfeeling to poor people.

Let me say, President Obama, that I care about the poor. I would more than willing to do something for them, in fact, I have been thinking of starting some sort of ministry. But I should not be forced to do that via my taxes. That is so wrong, so contrary to every tenet of America that it isn't even American at all. And if it is American, it's some sort of twisted, icky American that I don't want in my lifetime, or my children's, or even my great-great-great grandchildren's!!
He acts as if capitalism is virtually worthless. And it is, in it's current socialism-diluted state. Let us look at a perfect example of capitalist society in our lifetime. The drug industry.

Now, before you all fly off the handle and accuse me of drug-dealing, I am not involved in drugs. I have simply heard other people- those who should know- talking about it. When a person is dealing drugs, they sometimes dilute it with another substance to make more, hence make more money. But if the consumers of the drugs find out, that dealer will be basically boycotted. He will then go out of business.

Perfect, beautiful, pure capitalism.

If the consumer is unhappy, he stops buying from that person who made him unhappy. There is nothing wrong with such a system, except when the government starts 'regulating' everything. Yet, that is what Obama wishes to do to a greater extent than ever before!

He also spoke about energy- of course- and why we need to be 'independent'!! Know how we're going to be 'independent'?! By following Brazil's lead, and using ethanol! So our corn/sugar/wheat prices can skyrocket! Sounds great.

His chapter about race was yet more infuriating. He spoke about the 'race divide' constantly. Sorry, Mr. President, but there is no 'racial divide' any longer. The only 'racial divide' is the one that blacks have fooled themselves into. I have black friends. Some of the sweetest little kids I know are black.

I also don't like his attitude of condesencion. He constantly tells the black people who might be reading his book that they need help, "but I made it because...I'm special!!"

I won't talk about his foreign policy chapter because I've said it all before, and I'm sure it's getting redundant by now.

So, I am now convinced-
  1. He is a Communist
  2. He does not agree with the Constitution, making his oaths virtually obsolete, probably
  3. He has no idea what he's talking about

That's it in a nutshell. If you care to be horribly infuriated, go ahead and read the book. Get back to me then. ;) If not, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it....

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Pentagon-Implanted Chips

The Pentagon is looking in to chips that would be implanted in soldier's bodies- basically, some sort of inner GPS and medical monitoring machine. I see the logic in this- we want to keep our soldiers safe- but at the same time, such an invasion of privacy is truly not necessary.

Monday, May 4, 2009

To Streamline Government

President Obama has stated that he wishes to 'streamline' government. Well, here's my plan to 'streamline' government.

On the President's to-do list:

  1. Get a list of all government programs.
  2. Call in the heads of those programs.
  3. Get a red pen.
  4. Sit down and cross out all unnecessary or ineffective programs. Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, etc. come to mind here.
  5. Dismiss the program heads, giving each a copy of the 'help wanted' section of the newspaper on their ways out.
  6. Get a list of all goverment departments.
  7. Call in the heads of those departments.
  8. Get your red pen again.
  9. Sit down and cross out all unnecessary or ineffective departments. The Department on Aging, the Department of Education, etc. come to mind.
  10. Dismiss the department officials, and give them 'help wanted' papers, as well.
  11. Get a list of all incoming bills.
  12. Get that red pen.
  13. Veto all bills that are not expressly Constitutional, any that have pork, any that will trespass on state's rights, and any that are just plain useless.
  14. Get a new Congress.
  15. Call a special meeting of Congress.
  16. Get a copy of the Constitution.
  17. Read it out loud- ALL of it- to the entire Congress.
  18. Have a answer session. You know the drill- the 'teacher' asks questions, and the 'kids' answer. Right answers are awarded with candy, wrong answers are awarded by a blank stare.
  19. Congress members must recite- from memory- what their powers are.
  20. If they fail, they can reread it- once- and then try again.
  21. Once they suceed, they are given more candy.
  22. This will be repeated no less than once a month.
  23. Keep that red pen handy.

Voila ladies and gentlemen!

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Job Diversion

Our lovely President Obama released a statement this week that Wall Street was not going to play as big a part in the economy as formerly. Why? All in the interest of jobs, of course.

"That means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy. I actually think that's healthy. We don't want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design."

Don't people already go into those fields? You know where we're headed with this? A nuclear physicist being assigned to a knitwear mill, because 'We need you here!' (That was an actual case in China, by the way.)

This is a stupid idea. He has said things like this before. Assigning jobs, Mr. Obama, does not work. Never has, never will.

Friday, May 1, 2009

How to fix the economy...

  1. Make credit more accessible
  2. Bail out companies
  3. Stimulate the economy
  4. Help the auto industry
  5. Prevent foreclosures
  6. Extend unemployment aid
  7. Take over failed banks

Say hello to President Obama's plan. Wonderful, isn't it?

Mr. Obama, let me tell you a couple things.

For starters, giving people more credit won't do a single thing! One cannot spend oneself out of debt. It doesn't work that way. Furthermore, one cannot borrow oneself out of debt. Period. Credit isn't going to do a single thing! We do not need to 'borrow' to fix the economy; that's what got us into this mess!

Let us look at the facts. President Clinton was the one who pushed banks to lend to 'high-risk' borrowers. These 'high-risk' borrowers hence defaulted, and many of their loans were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Sound familiar? Fannie and Freddy summarily went down the tubes because they weren't bringing in money.

Bailing out companies will do absolutely nothing. Hence why Chrysler (which was 'bailed out') is now failing. Bailing out does nothing but apply yet another bandaid to the gaping wound we've given our economy, starting with FDR's 'New Deal'. More bandaids will do zilch. Nada. Zero.

As I said before- lending money to people who will not pay it back is not the way to 'stimulate' the economy. Furthermore, it isn't the government's job to stimulate the economy! It is your job to print money, period. But, of course, since you've already given up that power, I suppose you need to feel like you have some say in what happens...

We've helped the auto industry. To the tune of $31 billion. Not that it did anything, since the companies are still failing. Some help.

Preventing foreclosures will, again, do nothing. People make mistakes. People make dumb mistakes. Buying a house when they couldn't afford one is a pretty dumb mistake. It's what Dave Ramsey calls Dum Math and StupidTax. Stupid Tax is the price you pay when you use Dum Math and make an even dumber decision.

It's the way of life. But giving these people money- which ultimately, is coming from their pocket anyway- isn't the way to fix the problem.

'Unemployment aid' is about the stupidest idea that ever graced the pantheon of business regulations. You know what? If you get 'unemployed'- your employer fired you- there was probably a reason. You know why you're unemployed? Probably because you did a shoddy job. Period.

No one is entitled to money. To get money, you have to work for it. That is the most basic of all beliefs that the American people have ever held dear. Do you think those Irish people came to America hoping to get a government handout and to live on 'easy street'. Of course not! They were glad to get their factory job!

The idea that somehow we as Americans are 'entitled' to everything, is false. We are not 'entitled' to anything but life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's it. If your pursuit of happiness includes a house, go get a job and pay for it. Don't expect the rest of American society to foot the tab for you.

The government taking over banks? It's already happened, but it's a stupid idea, nonetheless. The idea that somehow the government- who has absolutely no money, and couldn't keep money in it's pocket if it tried- is qualified to handle the entirety of our money stores, is silly.

$10.43 trillion has been allocated to these programs. How much is a trillion? A lot. What is at the bottom of that page is what our government is throwing around. Pretty scary.

On that note, let us end this...Glorified Rant.