News media ignores politics at what cost to you?

You know, of the many things that disturb me about the current Administration and the Democrat-led Congress, the most scary has to be the lack of attention being given to their actions by the major media. Seriously, since the election of President Obama the media has fallen asleep at the wheel. At least if you compare the coverage and criticism given to the last 5 Presidents and Congresses.

Take for example the flip-flop of President Obama. He has stated repeatedly that the Government is not in the business of running various private businesses. Yet he has ensured the firing of a CEO of a car company, taken ownership positions in dozens of banks and 2 automakers, and has traded bailouts for ownership in multiple industries. Which says nothing of the mandates on how several of these once private businesses are going to be run. Yet the media is quiet.

Then there is the on-going flimflam of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She has gone from stating that she always opposed torture and waterboarding, to have been found to have been aware and silent about the aggressive interrogations, to denying knowledge, to deflecting the nature and degree of her knowledge. She has even gone so far as to accuse the CIA of lying – though she still has yet to officially form a single complaint of their supposed actions. Which stinks of covering her ass as she is caught playing polispeak and sucking up to polls. Yet the major news media downplays the entire event.

Hell, the major news media has all but ignored the most obvious of actions by the Obama Administration and the Democrats. I mean President Obama directly told the American public he is going to virtually triple the national debt with his budget, and the major news media didn’t blink. He directly looked out at America and said he is going to spend some $63 billion dollars a year on a healthcare plan, that does not even exist in an outline – and the major media looked away. And when the Democrat-led Congress violated the Constitution by enacting retro-active penalties and destroying the power of contracts, the news media sat quiet.

How is it that all these things are happening in the Government and the news media that loved to assault President Bush is so impotent today? Why would they allow this?

Perhaps the fact that the major news media companies spent millions to elect President Obama has something to do with this. Perhaps the fact that the downtrend in traditional media sources has accelerated with the bad economy, and thus now has them on the line for the next set of bailouts is a factor. Or maybe they just want to be a part of the groups controlling the direction that the Government is taking.

No matter which way you look at it, the result is the same. The general public is being distracted with arguments about American Idol, as liberties and laws are being subverted. This is all in the name of the greater good, but such is the path to Hell paved.

You can’t even say that they are acting in the best interest of the nation, because when President Bush made decisions with America potentially under threat of imminent attack the news media pounded him at ever turn. So it may be more fair to say that they are acting in the best interest of their profits, and political power base, as opposed to the benefit of the nation.

Politics has not been a major issue of popularity in this nation since the late 70’s. And as interest has waned, the size and reach into private lives of the Government has grown. Which is always a bad thing. But it is far worse when the people that are supposed to be helping the public are busy trying to help themselves.

None can serve 2 masters, and do so well. The media is no different. Their division in primary goals lead them to lose ground to the internet. Now they have focused on one purpose, self-preservation at all costs. They have rallied under the banner of Democrats, at an unknown cost to you and me.

Some may think I am making too much of all this. Some may think this is minor. But I will ask you this. If any of these things occurred under President Bush, do you in all honesty think that the major news media would have sat back and said nothing? Since that answer is no, why is it a good thing that they are quiet now?

Chrysler - the bad bet of President Obama

You know what's really sad about the economy? What really angers me about the bailouts? The way that the Obama Administration, Congress, and the Bush Administration have all wasted our money.

Yes even the anointed President Barack Obama is complicit in the waste of money that has been the bailouts and stimulus package. While President Bush started this waterfall of taxpayer money, and Congress has failed in every respect on these matters, President Obama has jumped in with both feet on making this a costly mistake since day 1.

Chrysler has now declared bankruptcy. They told America they would back in November of 2008 when they didn't get the full bailout they requested, along with the rest of the U.S. automakers. Rather than allowing the automakers to do the inevitable, the Government has thrown away our money in amounts that are near incomprehensible. Chrysler alone is responsible for some $10 billion of our money that will now not only fail to send our kids to school, or buy new homes, or build new businesses, but has effectively vaporized.

Of course there will be a cheer from Democrats since the American Government now owns 8% of Chrysler. What a bargain. They paid more than top dollar for a miniscule percentage of ownership, that currently is worthless. But don't worry, the Government can always buy more with your taxes and printing as much money as it wants. Your kid didn't need college anyway.

This is not a joke. I'm being serious. President Obama announced to the nation, along with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, that the only way to save American jobs and fend off a depression was to keep the automakers out of bankruptcy. That was a big part of the $1.29 trillion that President Obama spent in the first 100 days. Yet bankruptcy is what has happened.

Can you imagine $10 billion dollars? Does it make sense? Imagine a stack of dollar bills that reaches to the moon and back, with lots of money left over. That's how much money just disappeared.

Had the Democrat leadership just said no, and allowed the car makers to fail there would be that much more money available to help people survive this outcome. There would be that much money ready to help new smaller businesses to pick up the pieces of the failed companies and create new jobs and innovation. But the Government knows better than you or I. The Government can manage everything better - though facts to the contrary abound.

Think about this. If the Government is wrong about the billions it gave Chrysler, which has been proven by the bankruptcy, what else is it wrong about? That a depression will not be the outcome of this action? That they wasted more of our money on bad ideas than AIG, the automakers, and most of the major banks combined? That the total of the Congress and the President have less knowledge and acumen in the world of business than your local paperboy?

Each of the political parties is culpable in this mess. They all have played their part in creating this fiasco over the past two decades at least. But I must say that all the polispeak of President Obama stands out the most. Because the buck stops at the President, and his assurances are the ones that have failed the biggest right now.

I am pissed off because of in my forced ownership of Chrysler (via the bailouts using my cash like yours), I gain nothing. Had I made the choice of what to do with my money, I would have kept it in my pocket. Or gone out to a small dinner and helped the economy. Or added it to my investments (though future taxes on those investments would surely be more than the some of money I started with). I might even had given it to charity (though the tax on that gift might have been more than my charitable gift now that President Obama raised the taxes on that too).

Simply put, the President and the Democrat-led Congress made a bad bet. If they were a publicly run corporation I'd have shorted their stock long ago. But instead of their stock price going down, national unemployment is continuing to rise, my tax bill is increasing, I'm paying a mortgage of other Americans on top of my own mortgage, and I get to fear for my ability to maintain just what I have. Because they made their bets with my money, and yours.

This will no doubt be spun to blame everyone but the current Administration and Congress. There will be no end to the flowery views of future green cars and some abundant productivity in the future. But the fact staring us all in the face is that all those dreams would have been just as true, and likely, without an extra $10 billion in debt for the nation.

The first 100 days of President Obama

So we have made it thru the first 100 days under President Obama. The nation is still called America. This is still a democracy. The public, and more importantly the major media, still love President Obama. But this is no longer the nation that I grew up in.

There have been many changes under the Obama Administration, some due to the President and other due to the Democrat-led Congress. All of the changes have been based in the goals of the far-left and selected campaign promises.

Let's start with the appointees. There are many critical Cabinet positions that have yet to be filled. Several have had a revolving door of nominees, leaving some of the most critical positions that effect the economy open. Worse yet, there has been an undeniable consistency that virtually every Democratic nominee has failed to pay taxes, in some cases for multiple years, until nominated. Which is troubling in a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of way.

But beyond the appointees are other troubles.

President Obama has failed to live up to many of his campaign promises. The Guantanamo Bay Detention will be closed, eventually, though there is mass confusion on what to do with the detainees. Will some be imprisoned in American jails. If so at what higher cost than normal. If not in America then to where? So far only France has accepted exactly 1 detainee. So much for international support and their belief in President Obama.

President Obama has failed to increase transparency on 7 of 9 major laws since taking the Oval Office. This too was a campaign promise that was broken. The most notable case of this was the $787 billion stimulus bill. A stimulus package that does not spend all the money now, that limits the income level of those that can use it, that applies only to citizens that RECEIVE a paycheck, and is primarily a tool of social change.

There are numerous examples of millions being spent on projects like artwalks, skate parks, and non-existent homeless projects in cities without homeless problems. All of these are attributable to the stimulus package, and the fact that to this date almost none of the members of any level of the Government has read the full law. In fact almost no member of Congress or the White House read the entire bill before it was voted on and approved by Democrats. Nor did the public get a chance to read it before President Obama passed it into law. The reverberations of this are still being felt now.

Moving on, President Obama has enforced the ability to gain an abortion, even in later term pregnancies. Which is in line with his long-standing political beliefs, though not exactly the beliefs of the nation at large.

President Obama has approved the use of embryonic stem cells, another issue that flies in the face of overall public opinion.

President Obama allowed Congress to break the Constitution by retro-actively penalizing American citizens. This was in the form of specific and non-grandfathered taxes to the executives at AIG. These taxes were on bonuses that the executives received as part of their contract, that the Government did not renegotiate when they had the chance, and in fact guaranteed in the stimulus package that no one read. The Congressman that guaranteed the money? Senator Chris Dodd, a Democrat and in charge of the Banking Committee.

Also, while violating the Constitution - which President Obama taught at one point - the concepts of all contracts were broken. In violating the contracts that the Government itself assured, all contracts are theoretically void. Because if the Government can break one it can break them all.

Plus the Government asserted its ability to control private business. First in taxing the AIG executive, thus stating the Government can retro-actively dictate pay. Then in forcing the removal of the CEO of a major auto company, while demanding changes to the operations of that company along lines that only the Government desired.

All this before the Government requested the expansion of power to allow the Treasury Secretary, an un-elected position, the ability to take over any company that it deems is significant to the nation based on undefined criteria. Which if passes will allow the Government to theoretically take control of any and all companies it chooses to.

But President Obama has done more. He has ended the Iraq War, by removing troops (a campaign promise) in an extended timeframe with the exception of 50,000 troops (both violations of the same campaign promise).

President Obama has also proposed his new budget. This is separate of the $410 billion continuation bill that was passed, also funding 9,000 pork-barrel projects. It was passed the same day that President Obama made a public outcry to stop wasteful spending by the Government. And it violated a campaign promise to end pork-barrel spending.

But the $3.6 trillion dollar budget of President Obama does not include the continuation bill or the stimulus package. It does include some $600 billion for a nationalized healthcare plan, that does not exist today nor have any plans of how it might be implemented. And this budget, going by President Obama's own best case figures will reduce the budget by 50% in 4 years. This part has been highly publicized. What has not been publicized is the rest of the budget plan.

President Obama's budget goes on after year 4 for a total of 10 years. By the end of that time, according to the President himself, the deficit will have increased by 250%. Few in the major media discuss this outcome, nor question how any plan that creates a larger deficit than it starts with can be called positive or effective.

But like every Administration, there have been bumps in the road. Besides the appearance that no appointee in the Obama Cabinet pays their taxes, while demanding that citizens must do so in greater numbers, there have been other gaffes. Like the recent decision to fly a plane over New York City without notification of the Mayor or any public notification - creating a panic based on the 9/11 events. There has also been the bow that President Obama bestowed - which has been described as everything but what your eyes will see in the video. There is the publicly friendly, and privately harsh, discussion with Hugo Chavez. There was the embarrassing gifts to our strongest ally's leadership and monarchy.

Yes the Obama Administration has had a hit parade. And these are only the most public and notable points. There are many other quieter, even less publicized actions affecting law and governance, and the appearance of the nation.

Like the now unspoken manner in which North Korea essentially turned it's nose up to the U.S. and fired a rocket that in one move threatened our ally Japan, and our nation itself. This cemented the fact that America has less respect and instills less fear than ever before on the world stage. An idea confirmed as our Secretary of State, and President, issued apologies for the existence of America and our actions to continue to exist.

Yet on the domestic side of the table things are even more unstable. America now fights terrorists, and the ideal of terrorism, by giving it a new name. The idea must be that there cannot be a terrorist act if the Government cannot call anyone a terrorist. That is except of Americans themselves.

Yes, because the Government - in the guise of Napalitano - has sought to isolate those that disagree with the governance of the land. Those that hold ideologies separate of the Administration, that have vowed to defend this nation with their life, and/or those that believe a religion strongly have been placed at the top of the list of dangers to America. Quietly, and without public scrutiny. The Amish and bloggers like myself be warned.

This is but the briefest coverage of the first 100 days of the Obama Administration. Likely each point will be something ignored by the major media. Yet it is these things that define where America is truly going. And doing so with smiles. President Obama's approval rating is over 60%.

So though this has been used to describe President Bush, I think it more directly applies to the America that President Obama is shaping

"So this is how Democracy ends. With thunderous applause." - Princess Amidala in Star Wars Episode 3

But if the poll on my sites are correct, Democrats had best watch the clock carefully. Because their time in the sun may well be short. My poll results state that since the inauguration the total outlook by my readers that responded are

39% feel President Obama has kept his promises and is doing a great job
38% feel President Obama has BROKEN his promises and is doing a horrible job
16% feel they need more time to decide
13% feel President Obama is the same as any other President

My poll may be small, but I believe that my readers are some of the most informed, intelligent in the blogosphere (well overwhemingly most are minus the ones that shout profanities), and those from America are real representations of America. Thus I would state that this is the real view middle America holds.

So in summary, President Obama promised change. He never clarified what that meant or what he would change. After 100 days we now have an indication. It is a change indeed. Though none I know would have voted for this.

Thankfully we will have the mid-term elections soon, and might be able to reverse or hold off the worst of that change.

Greeting the Obama Administration

And now the shoe has dropped. Yes it has happened, an American now tops the FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list (or disgruntled native criminals or whatever the Obama Administration calls a terrorist these days). No one should be surprised. Not after the memos came out about targeting right wing conservatives.

Just the other day, as I was going to New York City, I was thinking about what this new direction the Obama Administration was taking meant to the average American. I noted that a Somali pirate, an Al Quida terrorist, or any number of other people and groups that dream of America ceasing to exist are all less important to this Government than my blog posts. Yep, my writing is more dangerous to America than Osama Bin Laden.

At least that is the indication the Obama Administration is making. Because I am a former Marine, intelligent, conservative, and Republican. That just screams extremist – especially when you consider that I reach over 125 countries and tens of thousands of people every month on my blogs alone. I write for over 100 in total.

Yes I am on a watch list of law enforcement because I dare to be all those things, and I disagree with the highly socialist bent of the current Presidential Administration. I’m sure of it, because Blogger just proposed to shut down my blogs as spam sites. They have only been around for over 3 years now. It’s resolved now, I think, but isn’t the timing interesting.

But how dare I mention this. Yet if anyone might think the proposal by the Government was harsh or politically motivated, someone had to be on the list that everyone agreed needed to be caught. Thus everything else is a coincidence, or paranoia.

It’s like a magician’s slight of hand. Let me distract you from the important issue of a Government becoming bigger and socialist by pointing at a danger. Don’t pay attention to the broken campaign promises or violations of the Constitution and law of the land, fear losing your job. Don’t notice the complete ineptness of the politicians in place, hate a miniscule group of people who get paid a lot of money (and forget that the Government chose to pay them that money). Ignore the focus of the media and Government to remove any commentary that is counter to what the Government approves of, remember that they are all radicals (not left-wing radicals like Bill Ayers but right-wing radicals which are bad of course).

Look, I understand the need to be aware. America is a nation of extremists by definition. We radically opposed the rule of England to create this nation. We are made up of people (most of whom) left their homelands because they objected to some part of the ruling government there. We have fought amongst ourselves – the Civil War, Japanese internment, killing off Native American Indians, slavery, and so on. We have every religion on the face of the planet all living right next to each other; and more wars have been fought over that than anything. So I get the concern.

But this is ridiculous. According to the Government wishlist not only am I a subject of concern and require law enforcement monitoring, but so do the Amish. Yep, the Amish.

The Amish are radically extreme in their religious beliefs. They are ultra-conservative. They do not conform to society. They are against stem-cell research, green energy, hybrid cars, abortion, teaching about condoms, and a host of issues that liberal Democrats in the Government are promoting right now. According to the imperative that unofficially the Government wants to pursue, the Amish must be on the top of the list. If that does not explain how absurd this orientation is, let me clarify it a bit more.

The Government is not looking to watch true radicals. People like Bill Ayers is missing from the people that is the focus of the watch lists. His brand of terrorism is completely fine it seems.

Bill Ayers is a self described anarchist. Which means he would love to see the Americans Government collapse. He was involved with a radical terrorist group, that sought to destroy the government, by force. He has written propaganda supporting these thoughts. He is politically active in trying to pursue these thoughts. But he is the friend of, and initial supporter of President Obama, so he and his ilk are fine.

Think about that. The Government is upset if peaceful objection (the tax tea parties as an example) occurs. Yet the blatant rants of self-proclaimed extremists – that have acted to destroy the Government in the past – are considered harmless.

The Amish, news commentators, bloggers like myself are all targets of the Government now. But left-wing radicals like Bill Ayers are good guys. Because people like me, make comments the Government does not like. And it doesn’t matter that we may have criticized the prior Administrations as well. Because only this current incarnation is important. And nothing should interfere with their goals.

That is the message I am getting.

Does that sound like America to you. When you look past the polispeak, the smoke and mirrors, and observe the changes the Government is making and their implications, do you see a freer America or an image of the old USSR? I have lived in Russia, and I say it’s the latter.

In fact ask anyone who lived in a socialist or communist nation. Ask them why they left. Ask them how close the actions of President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority leader Harry Reid match up to non-democratic nations. You may be surprised by the answer.

So for all the Government law enforcement officials I say hello. And keep on reading, because I’m not about to stop.

President Obama - The economy has glimmers of improvement

Lately President Obama has been commenting on the positives in the economy. It’s a huge reversal of the absolutely impending doom that he has virtually preached before and after his inauguration. But the big question is if it is true.

Is the economy better? Did any of the things that the Obama Administration pushed forward helped? When will joe average feel more confident?

All good questions, but there is no clear answer so far.

If you look at the economy as a whole you get mixed answers. Looking at NY State I can say that I am aware of a huge mixed bag. There are several businesses that have folded just this month, or are looking to sell right now. This is in part the fault of the overall economy, but also has to do with all the new taxes that Gov. Patterson is enacting. It just costs too much to do business here, especially in a bad economy.

A great example is the fact that over the last 30 days sales of potato chips and snack foods for a large multinational chain have plummeted to all-time lows from Buffalo to Syracuse. Is that a reaction to the new food tax that Gov. Patterson has recently proposed? Add to that the fact that cigarette sales have now jumped as well, costing about $7 on average in Binghamton alone. Which flies in the face of the fact that a 15 minute drive provides cigarette buyers a roughly 35% discount if they cross the border and buy cigarettes in Pennsylvania. How much do you think the higher costs will help NY business owners?

Consider that while there are some businesses that are expanding, they tend to be larger businesses. The smaller private businesses that provide most of the jobs for the local economies are just dropping off the radar, leaving other connected businesses with nothing but a debit in their accounting. The ratio is such that for every job that is generated somewhere around 3 or 4 are being lost.

So is that an improving economy? Jobs are being created, but is the cost too high? And can any local or even federal economy survive such a discrepancy when even the most mundane products are encountering dramatic downturns?

And then there is the banking sector. We have banks that took Government bailout money, even if they didn’t need it (to have a hedge), that now are being strangled by Government intervention. New regulations are being required that are obtuse at best. Which is preventing banks from providing loans to businesses that normally would have been provided.

A recent conversation I had concluded

'We have these guys in the Government. They have never worked in finance. They don’t understand making a loan or stock market operations. But they are the ones making regulations on how to make a loan or oversee the stock market. What do they know about it? Nothing. But they are the ones overseeing everything, bogging down what works and flooding everything with what doesn’t work.'

Consider this, the Government is so far up banking that even if a bank that took public funds wants to pay back every dime and interest, the Government won’t accept it. That is part of the provisions of the stimulus plan that was passed without anyone, especially Congress, reading it. Government is imposing regulations that they themselves don’t understand, nor can comprehend the impact of. Government is actively demanding business transactions that have no proven benefit (like the demand for hybrid cars though the market is immature and still developing). All the while it is imposing new taxes that impede business growth, and/or increase the cost to the end consumer - like new taxes on energy that directly affects the end user and increasing taxes on businesses and investments limiting growth.

So is the economy really improving? Or is it just getting a polispeak political shuffle that makes some aspects look impressive while diverting attention from long-term problems. I once offered the example of lowering the average Americans debt, just as President Obama has offered to lower the national debt. No one that I presented this scenario to found it to be worthwhile, yet the Obama Administration's budget plans continue without discourse or change. How can this make sense?

Window dressing is great. The President finally speaking about the economy in terms that do not sound like chicken little is a bonus. But the long-term impact is something far more murky and glum.

If the current actions in New York State are any indication, the rollercoaster ride is hardly over. The worst of what is to come is far more dire than what we are being presented. True consumer confidence is still at arms reach, in the best case.

Take that all into consideration the next time you hear that the economy is glimmering with improvement. Because all that glitters is not gold.

Don't blink, Democrats might have paused on spending your money

Perhaps the most stunning news to be announced since President Obama won the election has just been made. It has nothing to do with global warming, creating green energy, or nationalized healthcare. It has nothing to do with the growing problems with China, Iran, or Afghanistan. But it does deal with the monumental spending that has occurred since the beginning of the year.

For the first time since Democrats have overtaken the Congress there is going to be some restraint in the spending spree. Yes, that is shocking. Said by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself, the Democrats might not spend even more money just because they can. Amazing.

This of course is in reference to the possibility of a second stimulus package (the first best described as the ‘Obama gift to liberals’). The mere concept of which denotes the complete failure of the first Obama stimulus package.

“I really would like to focus on the first one," Pelosi told reporters. "I think it's important that the American people and the Congress of the United States have confidence in the recovery package that we have passed.”

Yes confidence. Like the confidence that Representative Barney Frank, Chairman since 2007 of the Financial Services Committee – which he has been part of since 1981, had in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

“Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee since 2007, characterized Fannie Mae (Stock Quote: FNM) and Freddie Mac (Stock Quote: FRE) as "fundamentally sound financially" at a hearing in September 2003, as the two entities went through major accounting scandals. Frank also said he didn't want "the same kind of focus on safety and soundness" on Fannie and Freddie as other financial firms and preferred to "roll the dice a little bit more" to support subsidized housing.”

Or the confidence of Senator Chris Dodd – member of the Senate Banking Committee for 25 years and Chairman since 2007 –

“Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Committee of Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs since 2007, called Fannie and Freddie "one of the great success stories of all time" at another hearing in 2004, noting that they brought homeownership levels up to 70% of the American populace. As recently as last July, Dodd called the two entities "viable" institutions that were "fundamentally, fundamentally strong."

Or the confidence you might feel when President Obama states that his economic plans (blunders in my mind) will “save OR create 3.5 million jobs”[emphasis added by me]. A statement that is factually impossible to prove. In addition to being polispeak for ‘my ass is covered no matter what happens’ – in my opinion.

The confidence these critical lawmakers display is awe inspiring, if you happen to be an anarchist or stock market bear. This is especially true when you consider that Democrats waited for a Democrat President to be in office before spending $410 billion on keeping the Government afloat – including 9000 earmarks that President Obama directly stated in his campaign to be elected would be checked line by line to avoid wasteful spending.

Yes you can feel very confident that either President Obama lied to the American public, is impotent before a Democrat led Congress, or that both the President and Congress just don’t care how much they spend as long as they can get everything they have wished for in the past 30 years - to the tune of $3.5 trillion just for this years budget.

What else could explain the $787 billion dollar stimulus package that neither stimulates new businesses, encourages job growth, nor provides an incentive for Americans to buy anything. But that same package does wonders for just about every liberal goal and social engineering agenda you can name.

But it seems that for the moment Democrats have paused on the all-out spend at every turn mentality that is the hallmark of the Obama Administration so far. I feel as if I just won the lottery.

Where is the bottom?

Over the past several days I have been asked two questions over and over. Where is the bottom, and where would I invest? They are difficult questions, and I don’t have great answers.

It has taken the market 4 months to reach the lower target for the Dow Jones that I called for on November 18th 2008. Once it reached that point I expected another 500 point drop, which took a week. At this point some 55% of my predictions from last year have happened. And that is a conservative estimate.

Since that time I have spoken with many former stockbrokers, business owners, and investors. And from all these discussions, the political environment, and what I believe, I can say the following with confidence in my mind.

The Dow will flounder between 7100 and 6600 for as long as the next 9 months.
Any upside movement in the market will be temporary.
If any global political events heat up in the next 9 months, things may get far worse.
Gold and oil will run sharply first.
A major bank will fail.

Since the start of 2009, the Dow Jones Index has lost 20% of its value. This was predicated on a liberal Democrat taking office as President, a Democrat-run Congress, the addition of $800 billion (not including interest but rounding up slightly) in spending called a stimulus package, and the fact that some $350 billion of authorized bailout is pending use.

None of this is a positive for the economy. Every large investor and institution could see that. I believe that major investors took the time from October until December to pull out most assets from the market. December was a time when small investors entered the market, and some short seller closed their positions. Which led to an artificial rise in the markets, seen by small investors and some media as confidence in President Obama.

From Jan. 2nd and on (at the latest), I believe large investors have shorted the market – if not just before that time. I believe that they foresee little opportunity for an investment over the next 18 months. Bonds are worthless at these interest rates (especially if inflation grows even half as some expect). Corporations are troubled by negative growth for at least 2 more quarters, and the continuing credit squeeze. Thus stocks are inadvisable, generally.

But I do not see large shorts to close their positions yet. They are waiting for a signal from the Oval Office and Congress. IF the Obama Administration goes forward with creating a nationalized healthcare, costing tens of billions of dollars to start, and Congress goes forward with the currently whispered 2nd stimulus (of the Obama Administration), then the shorts will increase and the Dow will go far lower.

The result of continued spending is that tax rates for the “wealthy” and corporations must increase. Where else will the money come from? And wealthy is a relative term. Because as the just passed stimulus package has made clear $75,000 for singles and $150,000 of couples is the threshold. And since corporate taxes were promised to increase 10% during the Presidential campaign, that cuts the current profits. Including transaction costs and taxes, the Dow would need to go down roughly 800 more points to give a decent net profit. If the cost of the Government is increased the assurance of who will pay grows exponentially.And thus the profit needed must as well.

But a friend mentioned something interesting to me. The market is always wrong at the top and bottom. With maybe some 90% of the market negative currently, we must be near or at capitulation. Which I agree with. Except normally at the top or bottom of a market there is an obvious near or mid-term expectation. There is none now.

There is virtually no sector of the market that can be observed to have an obvious benefit under the current political plans. Nor in the current private markets. Thus there is no area for capitulation to rush forward to. Thus it will not happen.

When the markets do reach the profit point of acceptance, and close their positions, where will they invest?

It is my expectation that the safest and smartest positions to create are in oil and gold. Only in those 2 arenas are we able to see assured continuous demand. Every other sector is questionable on time and return. Especially in this political environment.

There are companies in these sectors, or related ones, like Alcoa that trade at below book value now. This is an interesting value. But expectation of near-term growth is null. Yet at some point the vital raw goods will be needed, and demand plus speculation must drive the prices higher. And as that price rises, without another sector to compete with any real assurance, there will be a run – latter to be followed by another crash in those sectors.

At the very best, I expect some sectors of the market to show better than expected numbers in the 3rd quarter. Those that took short positions and closed out long positions in mid-2008 might have the same result for the 2nd quarter, but that will be far fewer companies than in the 3rd quarter.

This is a recipe for very flat to downward trends in the market.

Still there is hope. But it takes a lot of patience, building of positions in small steps, and no expectation of a reward (ie a return of 15 – 25%) for 18 to 30 months from now.

There is my answer. Take it as you will.

Senator Judd Gregg withdraws and highlights problem

Did anyone notice what just happened? Senator Gregg has just dropped from the nomination as the Commerce Secretary in the Obama Administration. Some may focus on the fact that this is the 2nd person to drop from that post. Some may question the multiple high-profile losses the Obama Administration has encountered. But that isn’t really important in this case.

The reason why Senator Gregg dropped out is important. Because he disagrees with the stimulus plan, which I don’t fault him for, and the census. And it is the census that should demand the most attention.

With so much attention focused on the stimulus and economic conditions of the nation there are several other things happening in the Obama Administration that is being unseen. And with a corrupted news media that still swoons when the President appears, the public is being denied the opportunity to speak about or learn what is happening.

Why is the census important?

The census is more than just a count of the people of the nation. It’s political power. It’s who has control of that power.

Currently the Commerce Department runs the census. And they use human beings to go out and visually count who lives where and how many. Based on those reports the House of Representatives grows or shrinks. With that change comes many other repercussions.

As an example, let’s say that San Francisco is a bastion of far-left liberal democrats. Lets say they have 2 million people according to the last census run by the Commerce Department.

Now what is being proposed by the White House is that they will run the census (or in thier words "work closely with the census director"), and not the Commerce Department. In addition the White House feels that computer models are far more efficient and accurate in deciding how many people live where.

But unlike the Commerce Department, the White house will not publish the computer models, just the results. So like any statistical poll, the models can be made to say almost anything wanted.

Thus in my example, San Francisco could become a city of 5 million people. That doubles the number of Representatives from that city and increases the Democrat power in Congress. The same model could decrease the population in any Republican or Conservative leaning city or town in the same manner. Thus we have an artificial imbalance of power arbitrarily and specifically created by those already in power.

Also going along with this ability to shape political outcomes is the ability to reward those the White House likes, and punish those it does not.

In the same example the increase in population would also give more federal money to San Francisco. That money, like the power would be taken from other cities and towns that the White House does not like, let’s say Dallas for example.

In essence it is a bribe and a manipulation of the Government. It is warping the democratic system this nation is based on. It is purposively taking the power of the people and redistributing it based on the whim of a small group of people, that may not have the best interest of the nation at hand. And who knows how such a hidden, non-transparent system may be abused in the future.

This is not what President Obama promised the nation before and after getting elected President. In fact this violates a promise President Obama did make.

Something needs to be said about this. Something needs to be done to prevent this. Because some far-left wingnuts like Moveon.org may love this idea, but most Americans are far more level-headed and rational that that.

The problem of a fiscally responsible homeowner

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m feeling very frustrated of late. It is the talk of the tax credits and benefits for new home buyers and those facing foreclosure. I just can’t help but be annoyed.

As a homeowner, I am listening to how the Government wants to give so much money to people who over-extended themselves. They want to make it so easy for people buying a new house. And those are good things. But for those of us with a home and paying our mortgage, well we just are being ignored.

There is no benefit to me for paying my mortgage on time. I get no accolade, nor tax break or credit beyond whatever has already existed. Yet I too am suffering. Maybe not as much as those that made bad decisions, or came upon unforeseeable problems. Still this economy is no joyride.

The Obama Administration wants to give a $15,000 tax credit to new home buyers. Those in default or foreclosure get to re-negotiate they mortgages, and/or Government aide. That’s a huge amount of money, individually or as a group. Yet because I am fiscally sound, because I made decisions that would provide me the ability to pay my obligations as I agreed to, I am effectively penalized.

The penalty is not just that I receive no benefit from the Government or via my mortgage. The money that has been spent, and will be spent in the near future, is money that will have to be repaid via taxes. That’s coming out of my pocket. Add to that the fact that since I have no adjustment, and I will have to be paying for what others are receiving for bad decisions I am effectively paying their mortgage and my own.

If I wanted to own another house, I would have bought one. But what I am getting is my home, and another place that I have never seen, cannot live in, and gain no benefit from. It’s almost as if the Government is saying

“You have a nice house. This family will be moving in with you. Oh, and you will pay them to do it. Thank you for being reliable and fiscally sound.”

But maybe it’s just me. Though I imagine that anyone that is renting would be even more upset as they don’t even have the benefit of a home, yet they are paying for someone else’s in spades.

So how do you feel about this?

Don’t say I didn’t warn you

I have been talking about the economy and what would happen if a Democrat would win since late 2007. When it became clear that President Obama was the Democratic nominee I discussed how the stock market would react to his win. And after the election I forecasted what would likely happen to the Dow Jones Index on inauguration day.

I hit the nail on the head. Well close enough to that anyway. I called for a 7600 Dow on or shortly after the inauguration. I called for a 500 point drop on inauguration day. And I detailed how the economy would continue to tailspin to levels last seen in the Carter Administration.

The Dow Jones Index closed down 332 points. The Dow currently sits at 7949. That’s down 4% from Friday and 12% since the start of the year.

Some will want to blame this all on President Bush, but the reality from Wall Street is that a Liberal Democratic President is a negative for the economy. If only ½ the economic promises made on the campaign trail come true the national debt will tower over any level seen before, and none of the plans are good for private business. And that is bad for investing.

Still crude oil is at lows, and the inflation hitting food has not increased in a while. So maybe Joe Public doesn’t realize how bad things will get, yet. But Wall Street is preparing. And they are looking at the long haul.

I still target the low of the first half at about 7600. I still believe that the money wasted on the mortgage/ credit bailouts will increase drastically. I say again that the 2nd stimulus plan will be a worse waste of money than the first under President Bush. And I insist that the Democrat-led Congress under Pelosi and Reid are the worst Congress in at least my lifetime.

I really hope to be wrong. But so far I am 4% or 349 points from being exactly on target. Any spike in oil prices, a run on gold, a blip in the value of the dollar, continued fighting in Israel, or any of a number of anti-American nations - and terrorist groups - beating their chests (as Vice President Biden promised will happen) and my targets will be exceeded. And all the feel-good talk prior to the inauguration will evaporate.

Yes the stimulus plan will be a great political boost for our new President. And public opinion will soar, until everyone realizes that the extra $60 a week (or less) will not prevent them from losing jobs. Or that at some point soon you will be paying taxes for a house you don’t own. Or paying for a healthcare system that is substandard and as convoluted as any department of the Government. Stock will lead the way down.

But there is time to avoid all this. Congress can reel back all the new additional spending. President Obama can give up on the 2nd stimulus plan. Taxes could be cut, at both the corporate and personal levels. And departments of the Government could be trimmed of wasteful spending.

In a pig’s eye.

Congress is going to spend more than what has been used to bailout the financial industry as the first shot in the bow. Additional money will soon be needed to balance the financials already continuing to flounder, not counting those that will follow like dominoes. And the auto industry that stated flatly that a penny less than $50 billion in a bailout would mean Chapter 11, will become bankrupt as they did not get their money.

Increased regulation will increase cost, and fail to increase good business decisions. And companies will fail. The stock market will lead it all down. Lines will form for Government corporate handouts. The national debt will soar.

Sounds bleak doesn’t it. It should. It is happening before your eyes. By the end of the 1st quarter Joe Public will feel it, badly. Just in time for taxes.

And if I am only as correct as I was about my prediction for the inauguration, well you can see what that will mean. I hope, honestly hope, that I will be wrong.

I really want to be wrong. But what I see in the marketplace tells me that I am right. That double digit inflation and unemployment are mere months away. And that it will last at least as long as the Obama Administration, if not longer.

So since putting your money in a bank will gain you nothing, the taxes on investments make that plan dumb for anything with a return in the next 2 years, and gold is already moving just wait. Wait and take small bites all the way down. Because America will rebound at some point. Because I hope to be wrong soon. The reward from that will be better than me eating crow, it will be a stronger economy.

I can’t wait.

Illegal immigration: the problem and a potential solution

From time to time I have discussed the question of immigration in America. To be direct, I do not like any illegal immigrant being in the nation, and absolutely believe that they deserve nothing from the Government if they are here. That being said, if you want to give up your home for immigrants to stay at and your income for them to live reading further will only anger you.

Again I will start with a clarification. They are not undocumented workers. That is polispeak for Illegal alien or more accurately illegal immigrant. The document they are missing is a green card - which would give them legal purpose to be in this nation. Thus every single illegal alien is a willful criminal first and foremost.

This is an issue that will definitely come to fore during the Obama Administration. With a Democrat-led Congress and the most liberal President in decades, I have no doubt that legislation will be attempted to give these criminals citizenship. I am completely against this idea.

Right now tens of millions if not more is being spent on illegal immigrants. Prosecuting illegal criminals, removing them from the work force, closing down sweatshops, medical aide, education and housing are but a few sources of the costs. While these individually are not major factors, combined they do help to affect the American economy. They add a burden that need not be there.

I have no problem with my taxes going to help those in need, when they are citizens. I have no problem helping people throughout the world. I endorse several humanitarian causes in Africa (Darfur among the top) and elsewhere. But those endorsements and donations are my choice. Illegal aliens are a burden I cannot choose to bear.

Think of it like this. I know of no one that would suggest that a crack dealing armed robber should receive federal housing, unless that housing were a jail. But if that same individual was illegal some believe that criminal deserves - and some may have - federal housing. That is not to say that all illegal aliens are hardened criminals, but the fact is some are. And one dollar for that is a dollar too much.

There are those that believe illegal immigrant children deserve higher education. This is not elementary school or high school. They state that college is a right of these people, specifically the right to receive federal aid and in-state tuition, the same as American citizens. Which first ignores the willful act of being an active criminal in this nation. Second it grants rights we do not give to those that legally enter this nation for a higher education. And third it adds a burden that is not compensated for as these young adults (18 - 22) and their parents do not pay taxes which the financial aid comes from.

In the same vein of thought is everything that illegal immigrants demand and ask for. They want to have rights of citizens, but are unwilling to accept the first responsibility of every citizen, following the law of the nation. That is a bit backwards in logic.

Even more people wish to give these criminals a right to become citizens. To my knowledge America does not give criminals - especially those that have or would likely commit felonies - citizenship from any country. Every adult illegal alien has actively chosen to commit a felony and they want to be rewarded?

I do understand the difficulty in removing every illegal immigrant from the nation. Given the size and wealth of our nation (even in times of recession and depression, like now) it is unrealistic to believe we will ever remove or prevent all illegals. But that is not an excuse to place a value and commoditize our citizenship. Which any plan of path to citizenship that involves a fine creates.

So what is the answer? Many will not like my answer. In fact to a degree I do not. Because it creates a de facto system of abuse. But the current system is basically no better in terms of abuse and/or discrimination.

But an idea is one that has worked in the Ancient past. Secondary class citizens. We create a legal class of citizenship that is not entitled to every right just as a full citizen would receive.

All illegals that accept this would be entitled to continue to live and work in the nation.

• They do not have a right to vote.
  
• They do not have a right to federally funded housing.
  
• They do have a right to receive federally funded food and medical aide.
  
• Their illegal children have the same right to receive an education as any other citizen, but they cannot receive in-state college status.
  
• They can only receive half the federally funded financial aid of a citizen.
  
• They are protected by all the laws of a citizen, and must receive the pay of a citizen.
  
• They will pay 50% more in federal taxes which they must file for every year or have their status rescinded.
  
• Every illegal alien age 18 - 26 must sign up for a draft if the nation ever deems the need to call on them.
  
• And if they are convicted of any felony, ever, they will be deported immediately no matter if they have children that are citizens.


Those that would flaunt this choice, and try to avoid this, would be deported after losing all possessions and 1 year of hard labor (think chain gang fixing roads across the nation).

Why might an illegal immigrant family or individual accept this? Because their children born on U.S. soil retain the rights of a full citizen. Because they will not be deported (so long as they do not violate the felony statute). Because even under these conditions they will live a quality of life greater than that in their home nations.

This plan is not completely fleshed out, so don't just tell me their are loopholes. I know there are, but I am not a politician and this is not a law I am presenting to Congress. This is an idea for others to iron out more completely. But it is comprehensive. And it addresses all illegal aliens currently in the nation and those to come. It is a path to citizenship, albeit to the children of the illegals. It removes the commoditization of U.S. citizenship, and addresses the willful violation of our laws.

It's not nice, but life is not about nice. It's relatively fair, and far better than the lives they led in their homelands. And they always have the choice before them. They can leave or suffer the consequences of further violating our laws.

Now let the debate begin.

When the Clinton ledger hits daylight

$492 million in 11 years. That is a heft sum of money, just under $45 million a year. Talk about an annual pay that dwarfs the imagination. And almost all of it comes from overseas. And some think that the world has stopped investing in America.

Of course this is not investments in America as in the stock market. This was not money put into real estate or any other investment. Unless you call the Presidency and top level American politics an investment. Which obviously more than a few do.

All of this has been revealed now that former President Bill Clinton has divulged the 205,000 names of those that donated to the William J. Clinton Foundation (it only took 10 years to be told). And when I say donated I mean a lot of money.The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million, Amar Singh, Suzlon Energy Ltd. of Amsterdam, Nasser Al-Rashid, Lakshmi Mittal, Harold Snyder, Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi, Mala Gaonkar Haarman, Lukas Lundin, Victor Pinchuk, all gave gave $1 million to $5 million. And of course there is also Denise Rich, who gave the foundation at least $450,000. She just happens to be the wife of Marc Rich - recipient of a President Clinton pardon.

Some other names that bring up questions include Frank Giustra who gave $31.3 million following a 2-day visit by Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan that resulted in his gaining control of uranium mining in a astounding move in the mining industry.

Amar Singh is an Indian politician that has spoken with Senator Hillary Clinton recently about nuclear arms on behalf of his nation.

Suzlon Energy makes it's money in creating wind turbines, the number one energy initiative of Democrats, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who owns stock in that industry).

China Overseas Real Estate Development - which gave between $250,000 and $500,000 is interesting. Especially for those focused on how much China has bought into the U.S.

Perhaps one of the oddest donations to me is that of COPRESIDA-Secretariado Tecnico for some $10 to $25 million dollars. COPRESIDA was created by the Dominican Republic government to fight AIDS. Considering the relatively poor nation's funds, why would they donate so much of their budget to a foundation instead of to AIDS drugs, researchers, or promotions focused on awareness and prevention?

In a similar vein a question would be the $10 to $25 million from Children's Investment Fund Foundation - a group that is dedicated to helping children, primarily in Africa and India. Would that same money not be better spent in Africa and India on food, clothing, building secure homes, clean water and so on directly?

But looking at all the major donors, and looking back on the timing of many of the investments - excuse me, donations - the question quickly becomes if Hillary Clinton can be an objective Secretary of State. Her long term involvement in the gains of her husband, and the governments he has 'worked' with cause pause. Like how will Pakistan trust her neutrality when Indian interests provide her and Bill Clinton so much money. Or when thinking about Marc Rich the question of whether she can be bought arises.

The Secretary of State is supposed to be without agenda, beyond the message of the President. Somehow this does not appear to be within the capabilities of Senator Clinton. Something that was apparent to me throughout the Democratic Primaries.

But a Democrat-led Congress, with a President that is as liberal as the Party has, and a Democratic Party still looking to smooth the ruffled feathers of 18 million of their voters, is likely to overlook almost anything. Not that this in any way is to the benefit of the nation.

Rewards and penalties for American politics

Ok, so is it just me or has anyone else noticed the way the Democrats are rewarding each other? President-elect Obama took the Democratic Primaries, and to reward Senator Hillary Clinton for not fighting out the DNC he gave her the Secretary of State position.

In doing so he swallowed all of the comments of former President Bill Clinton - most regarding President Obama as secondary and racially questionable. He has effectively ignored all the attempts of the Clinton campaign to paint him as a Muslim, and drug dealer. And he has taken the most ambitious and willing -to-do-anything political viper into his cabinet.

All Senator Clinton had to do was make a complete political 180-degree turn around on what she had spent months and millions of dollars stating. Not that such actions are unusual for her.

And the public got a Secretary of State that derives part of her income from monies donated to charities she and her husband run, from countries what have dubious at best relations with the U.S. We received a Secretary of State that was willing to have a major fundraiser that was a known fugitive from the law, and tried to keep the money he provided, which was known to be stolen.

President-elect Obama has just rewarded Gov. Richardson with a Secretary of Commerce position. Gov. Richardson was the first to back Obama and run from the Clinton campaign. For such political shrewedness it was expected he would get the State position. But Latinos are not as important as donor money, 18 million supporters, and a backdoor deal (made just after Hillary conceded).

One of the things that has really gone unmentioned is Representative Charles Rangel. He was the key Democrat that push Senator Clinton into conceding the Democratic Primary. He is known as a staunch Clintonite, so his doing so made him a visible example.

Shortly after blasting Hillary (politically) it was found that Representative Rangel had homes in the Dominican Republic that he paid no tax on, that he had several rent-subsidized apartments in new York City though he claims Washington DC as his residence. Add to that the fact he is now also being investigated for receiving $1 million in donations to his Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service from the CEO of Nabors Industries after he got them a tax break.

Most of his tax and residence issues all existed for years. And not a single person in Congress ever made not of this. The IRS never questioned it. Everyone in politics were completely fine with his actions, until he pissed of Hillary Clinton.

So what are we seeing in the Obama Administration?

Old politics in the embodiment of past figures from the Clinton Administration. Partisan politics in the number and degree of down-the-line Democrat political figures. People (Like Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton) that are known for their spiteful actions to those that oppose their views. People that are willing to accept funds and favors from anyone that can advance their political goals. People that will seemingly say anything, and reverse their publicly stated opinions at the drop of a hat, for political favor.

And we have an Administration that is filled with crossed political agendas. Vice President-elect Biden opposed President-elect Obama on several foreign policy and economic views - which he reportedly believes in and wants to support. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opposes President Obama on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, and a number of goals that she has sworn repeatedly to uphold for her 18 million voters. And Secretary of Commerce Richardson is not without his disputes and objectives.

This is an Administration that was primarily loyal to the Clinton's, hates any policy that is not left-wing liberal, blindly pro-Democrat, with little to no positive experience with economic issues. Several of the key figures all have opposing and partisan agendas - none of which match the stated goals of President Obama.

The in-fighting that will occur will be unmatched by any Administration I can recall in my lifetime. And we the people will get the rewarding opportunity to watch this all unfold via television and blogs. The only price of admission will be the economy at large and the national debt. Not too big a price some might say.

And for those that oppose any part of this, this Administration has enough venom to kill a African Black Mamba. Just ask Rep. Rangel. Too bad Iran, Al Quida, Indian extremists, Russian expansionists, OPEC, the stock market, NATO and many others could give a damn less about American internal political oneupmanship.

Race relations in 2009 and beyond

“Many ___ feel that the country their forefathers built has been ... stolen from them, so there's in some places a real boiling rage, and that can only become worse as more people lose jobs."

This is about President Obama, the economy, and America. But not exactly the way you might be thinking. The above comment is a quote missing just one word. And that word changes the meaning completely.

That word is “Whites”, placed after many in the first sentence.

But take a moment and imagine that in its place the word African American. The meaning changes, but how it changes might be really interesting for the nation.

The reason why this is important is because since the election, 200 racially motivated hate incidents have occurred. Each of these incidents are crimes, of varying degrees and severity. And the offenders have been across the gambit of age ranges from teens to far older adults. And of course some are small minded racists.

The thing is that most of these people, though White, are not the stereotypical image the media has created of modern-day racists. Many are high school and college educated. Some are from middle class or higher income homes. Of course the traditional isolationist, less educated, poor, weak willed, and essentially backwards racist still have not disappeared from the earth yet.

It seems that since the election many Whites are coming to the view that the current status of the Government is exemplified by the Presidency of Barack Obama. And that’s without him having taken the Oath of Office, or serving a single day in office yet. Which is even more baffling when the fact that Government has been run by Whites for 232 years is ever considered.

But I started this conversation considering the quote. And I asked what you thought when you interject different races into the spot where Whites was stated.

As an educated Black Puerto Rican the change in the word makes the statement make sense. It is the anger of living in a nation that was literally built on the bones and blood of ancestors – and never receiving a thank you or I’m sorry. It’s the anger of being kept from schools, jobs, homes for hundreds of years. It’s the way America has been everyday up to and including today. And tomorrow looks only slightly better.

Considering history, especially any aspect of Black History in America beyond the paragraph that existed when I was in school, it makes sense for that statement to be said by Blacks. And it seems foolish for Whites to say it. It actually sounds laughable when I hear it worded that way.

But if some Whites, who today have a greater potential to achieve virtually anything they want than I do after 40 years of work, believe this statement to be true what does that mean for America? When people who enjoy ownership of 99% of the wealth of the nation, 90% of the Government positions, 95% of ownership and executive management positions, start to get anxious where is the nation going?

I had a statement back when I was a kid

“If it takes more than 1 guy at the same time to beat me in a fight, I must be a badass and damn intimidating.”

President-elect Obama has yet to pass a law, take an Oath, or even pick a Cabinet. But the fearful are already reacting, shifting blame of any perceived or real ill on Obama’s back. This isn’t about politics, this is just racial. And Obama must be the biggest badass of all.

The more I hear of these things, the more concerned I become for the nation. Because if we do not speak about and come to terms with the issues of race that pervade every instance of life in America, we are going to have an explosion. Maybe not during the Obama Administration (though it could be), but at some point in our collective future.

And it will be bad. For everyone.

But what does that quote make you think?