Obama is out there pressing Congress on his massive "Economic Recovery Act".  He's got Pelosi and Reid out there in full force trying to press the media to spin this now $900 billion spending bill as some kind of save all.  Nevermind the billions of dollars in the massive bill being spent on everything from Universal Healthcare preparations to condoms and ochestra instruments.  Really?  Someone explain to me how Universal Healthcare (already a loser in terms of investments), birth control and musical instruments stimulate the economy.  The fact is that around 60% of this spending bill has no direct correlation to rescuing our economy.  Instead, Congressional Dems are using this financial crisis to spend money we don't have to prop up industries that are 1.) Traditionally liberal and 2.) Failing!  Some of the more infamous parts of the bill include:

1.) wireless and broadband deployment grant programs - $2.825 BILLION  for expanding wireless and broadband internet access to rural customers.  I'm sorry, but I actually heard the argument from Maxine "This Liberal" Waters on this subject and I have to ask, "Really?"  Since when is it a God given right that people who live 100 miles out into the middle of nowhere have broadband internet access?  She actually suggested that providing broadband internet access to these people would create long term jobs.  Well ok, I'll grant that maybe a few more technicians could be hired to support this new broadband infrastructure but more likely it will just add a larger radius to the already over expanded broadband infrastructure.  She suggested that by deploying this broadband access it will open new job opportunities to rural citizens. Ok, on this one I have to ask, I know it's been about 2 hours since I looked at Dice, Carerrbuilder and Monster.com but have they really become broadband only sites?  Let me check..Nope, I can access it from my dial-up connection just fine.  Not to mention that the reason why these customers don't already have broadband access is because the private communications companies have determined that this type of expense isn't going to produce the return on the investment that they need to support it.

2.) digital-to-analog converter box program - $650 MILLION for delaying the DTV transition.  - Really, how many people are still using TV's from the 50's, 60's, 70's??  This was a highly publicized program which included vouchers that had been going on for at least a year.  Can't we just say, if you haven't contacted us, you haven't taken your own like into your own hands, then I'm sorry, you'll be without a television until you buy a new one.  Hell, let's save some money on this and distribute some radios as parting gifts to those people who can't comply with having a TV manufactured later than 1988.

3.) National Endowment for the Arts - $50 MILLION for "projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn"  - You show me where this is going to stimulate anything other than the liberal mind.  I enjoy a good painting, poem or picture as much as the rest of you but I can forego my visit to the National Arts Museum in order to sustain my family.

4.) prevention and wellness fund - Not less than $335, MILLION shall be used as an additional amount to carry out domestic HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually-transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention programs, as jointly determined by the Secretary and the Director.  - Prudent during times of national prosperity, I find it curious as to how this will stimulate the economy.

5.) capital and debt service grants to the national railroad passenger corporation - $800 MILLION to Amtrak - Now I understand Joe Biden has a lot riding on this part of the bill but really, do we need to bail out Amtrak AGAIN?  This passenger rail service is little used by anyone not with the last name Biden.  Heck, when Beau Biden went over to Iraq, I belive Amtrak's ridership went down around 50%.  Regional rail service coupled with metropolitan area rail/subway has supplanted the need for Amtrak.  We ought to disolve this economic drain and support localized and regional rail services in the areas that actually utlize this form of transportation

6.) State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - $79 BILLION to states to help with budget shortfalls - OK, you have GOT to be kidding me.  Let me ask you something.  If you are already broke, and I mean so broke you have to charge your kids rent, are you going to lend money to your kids, who are also broke, so they can pay you back your rent?  NO!  Of course you're not going to do that.  We're in debt past our eyeballs and here we're going to prop up states doing the same thing we are nationally.  Before you question my ideology here, my home state has a $640 MILLION deficit and will get much more than that out of this fund.  As far as I am concerned, I don't want it.  Let Delaware and every other state, make the tough choices and cut our way out of this.  In my opinion, Delaware ought to act like "The First State" anyway and hold to the ideals of the founders by being fiscally responsible and show other states as well as the national government how to operate fiscally.

America as well as the rest of the world is going through some tough times these days.  The economy is in the tank and our government is expanding.  The news media is quick to point to a recession, others are screaming about this being another Great Depression.  Barack Obama suggests that only government can solve our problems.  Ironically, when worse problems faced a former President, his quote was "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  We must step back from the problems and look at the big picture.  Much of the present crisis in 2009 has been created by government through it's back room dealings with the financial industry and unions and its total domination over the market.  We live in a free market economy which does not respond well to forced government intervention.  Another major factor in the recent economic slowdown comes from another, less talked about and politcally dangerous area, immigration.  In the year 2000 America had a population of roughly 282 million people.  Todays Population is over 306 million.  That is an 8% increase in total population in less than one decade.  The entire world, including China, India and Russia whose populations have traditionally outpaced America, grew by about 10% in the same period.  Births during this time period have been roughly on par with the replacement of deaths within America during the same period.  What accounts for the majority of the increase is immigration.  Millions of immigrants both legal and illegal have flooded our borders since 2000.  America, while founded by immigrants, on the premise of allowing all immigrants to begin anew their lives, has reached its critical mass.    The flood of immigrants seeking homes and jobs in America spiked so high that the country faced three choices, none of which were desireable. 
1.) Round up all immigrants, decide which are legal, which are illegal and how much America could handle at one time and send the rest back to their home countries.  This would have been a massive undertaking and would alienate so many millions that it could not be seriously considered as an option.
2.) Close our borders and stop allowing new immigrants into the country until the population growth stabalized and began to decrease.  More desireable than the first choice, but still not politcally correct.  It would in effect remove America from the world stage and cause anti-American sentiment to be propogated across the globe.  This would likely have been one of the best choices out there and may have allowed the market to adjust easier, possibly avoiding this crisis altogether.
3.) Create more infrastructure, lower standards and financial restrictions, mandate excess job creation and print money.  Possibly the worst of the choices but the one chosen by the government.  The government decided to deal with the population increase by forcing the market to accept the incoming immigrants quickly.  They forced banks and lenders to lower standards and increase home salses to buyers who were not previously acceptable.  They mandated that companies increase job creation to accomodate the immigration trend immediately and spent billions on creating more infrastructure and government services that would be tapped mainly by immigrants.

And so the market thrived, until it became too much.  For years the market showed unprecedented growth as immigrants found prosperity and financial success in America.  Jobs were plentiful and credit flowed like water from Niagra Falls.  Immigrants both illegal and legal spent their hard earned wages on American goods and services.  Business owners were able to continue hiring as people continued buying.  Real estate prices soared as the demand for homes grew and grew.  America was so accepting that more and more immigrants stormed the borders, north from mexico, west from the Atlantic routes and East/South by way of Canada.  Eventually the economy grew so large that it simply burst.  Much like a balloon overfilled with water, the economy reached its breaking point.  The market simply corrected for the forced changes.  It could not keep up with the demand.  First the dollar became devalued as the government flailed to try and stem the tide by printing more money.  With the printing presses operating at full speed, dollars churning out like water from a fire hose and nothing changing, the US banks were forced to begin restricting credit to cover themselves with the falling dollar and mounting debt.  Housing markets began to tank as credit was restricted.  The government still printed money even as the credit market was drying up and businesses began to be affected by falling credit.  They were unable to keep up with the empty jobs they created to cover government mandates and keep their business profitable.  Now we have seen the job cuts.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in less than one year and millions of lives have been affected.   

A crisis that could have been averted by making the difficult choices has been made worse by "quick and decisive action" and the "bold action" that Congress has engaged in to fix the problem the created and refused to stop, threatens to worsen and prolong the current crisis.  We must remember what happened after Reagan uttered his famous quote, and then pushed government aside.  Double digit inflation was reversed, interest rates as high as 20% shrunk and jobs and government revenues grew dramatically.  So to President Obama, our new national leader,
Mr. President,
                      I must respectfully disagree with you when you say that government is the only solution to this current crisis.  Indeed, government is the worst possible solution to this crisis.  Please get out of the markets way and allow it to correct, shrink, and rebuild itself at its own pace.  Should you decide not to do this, you risk, and will reap, a longer, more painful depression than we have ever seen in the history of the world.  One that I am not sure from which we could recover.  Now is not the time for Socialism/Nationalism, now is the time for being America.  Land of the Free, Home of the Brave and the voice of liberty.

The party of Abe and Reagan is at a crossroad.  Some left leaning me too Republicans, moderates who followed the migrating herd of Democrats during the Reagan years, feel that John McCain, the ultimate moderate, didn't reach over far enough.  Are you serious?  McCain completely alienated the Conservative base and compromised principles to attempt to appeal to moderates.  Conservatism is not just a buzzword in politics.  Conservatism is built on ideals and principles that while they evolve, never die in the end.  The prospects of limited government, low taxes, states rights and individual responsibility are principles that will always be in demand.  In fact, conservatism is as strong now as it has ever been although you may not know it.  More Americans than ever are looking for a gateway to the principles of our founders.  The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln (1860-1865) however, conservatives can trace the roots of their political identity back through the Whig Party and further still to the Federalist party and even back to George Washington who is often identified as a Federalist, but was a politically unaffiliated President.  Conservatives from what became the Federalist party believed that the local governments and municipalities ought to have control over their own tarrifs and taxes as well as other aspects of life such as religion and press.  the King of England was eager to bring these budding revolutionaries under control and while imposing tea taxes, sent troops to ensure the safety of his tax collectors.  We all know what happened through years of escalating violence and a revolutionary movement that never compromised their principles.  Once America won its independence, the question arose, what do we do now? 

Americans turned to the constitutional convention with delegates appointed from each of the 13 states.  Without going into too much detail on a process that was complicated due to the many unique desires of each state, the delegates reached a compromise on how the government should be formed.  They decided on a limited federal government charged with the purpose of levying taxes on citizens in order to provide for national defense including an Army and Navy, foreign policy decisions, and foreign commerce.  The constitutional convention far from ignored other important issues.  Indeed much debate centered around issues that all states could not agree on (slavery was one of these issues).  It was decided that the limited federal government powers shall be the ultimate rule of law within the boundaries of the constitution.  State governments we given the broad authority to decide for themselves how their states would provide for all other needs of its citizens.  Early in the process of most state constitutions, the model was similar to the federal government constitution.  State governments generally limited their own power to infrastructure, public safety, a militia and commerce between the states.  Local municiplities were given the broader powers to define social conditions for their own people.  The idea was to provide as much power to indvidual citizens, by placing the government as close as possible to them, while maintaining an ordered structure.  The idea was to allow the citizens to ultimately govern themselves through the election of their own local, state and federal government delegates and to grant as much of the power of government to the lowest level of government, placing most of the power as close to the people as possible.  The founders were hoping to foster the principles of limited government, low taxes, states rights and individual responsibility.

These ideas have been perverted over the years with arguments like, "Well if it isn't in the constitution, the founders just couldn't envision it."  This argument usually comes up with regards to slavery.  Actually, slavery was one of the most hotly contested social policies that divided the Consitutional convention. In fact, slavery was purposely NOT referred to within the U.S. Constititution or the Declaration of Independence.  Words were actually edited to ensure that slavery could not be considered a national doctrine.  Most northern states were opposed to either the expansion of slavery or slavery itself.  Many of the delegates to the convention owned slaves and even among their ranks they felt opposed to it.  One of the great ideas of the conventions that drafted first the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution was to include the ability of future generations to correct the injustices of the time.  At the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Indepence, the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", was actually "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and property".  Contrary to popular belief, Thomas Jefferson did not draft the Declaration of Independence entirely on his own.  He was aided by editors who brought up the idea that slaves were considered property at the time and that the Declaration of Independence, a document they know would be the rule of law until a constitution was created, could be interpreted to ensure Ameica would be a slave nation.  So the word property was removed and the phrase "the pursuit of happiness" was written in place.  It was a genious move and set the stage for correction of one of the worst attrocities in human history.  Why didn't the convention just abolish slavery at the time?  As I mentioned, the issue of slavery was hotly contested and stayed at the forefront of American politics until President Lincoln officially abolished the barbaric practice with his Emancipation Proclamation.  It was so contested that a consensus agrement could not be reached.  Slave owners argued that abolishment would result in total ruin especially of southern states who relied heavily on the unpaid workforce to tend the massive fields that grew their crops and provided their only sources of income.  The north had less acerage and and more people so it was therefore was more conducive to the new industries that were cropping up in a fresh nation.  The abolishment of slavery would have torn apart an already fragile group of states and put in jeapordy everything they were trying to create.  The founding fathers placed country before self and agreed to leave the question of slavery out of the founding documents.  The issue of slavery however, was not left out of politics.  It was left to the states to decide their future and decide it they would.

While slavery was left out in one form or another from the two major founding documents, religion was not.  Religion was a debate that offered little resistence.  Most of the citizens of America were of one Protestant denomination or another, fewer were Catholic and so the decision of religion had to be decided.  The founders learned from the mistakes of England who used the Church of England to commit many criminal acts not the least of which was murder.  They realized that their primary reason for coming to America in the first place was to establish new colonies outside of the control of the Church of England and wanted to ensure that America would never make the same mistakes as England.  With this in mind, the founders created the seperation of church and state that is so often misrepresented.  The idea was never to remove references to religion in politics, but to ensure that no one religion would be forced on Americans.  Citizens of this new nation we to be allowed choice of religion.  In fact, the founding fathers were richly diverse in terms of relgion.  Quakers, Protestants, Catholics loyal to the Church of England, and Deists were most common.  Benjamin Franklin is often referred to as having tried many different flavors of religion.  This belief comes from his willingness to donate to many different religions in Philadelphia.  The most likely cause for his investments in these houses of worship was his belief that any religion which taught moral values was inherently a positive and deserved his support.  For some time Franklin was a follower of Deism.  Deists believed that there was a single creator and that the creator influenced the creation of the Earth and all creatures on it.  Where it differed from traditional religions is that the Deist God did not trouble himself in daily affairs and in fact, was not able to do so as his plane was different from our own.  Deism largely died out as religious persecution either converted followers to Christianty in one form or another, or labeled Deists as Atheists.  The Deist religion did nothing to answer many of the questions of the world that were offered by early man who had not the scientific skills that exist today and also relied heavily upon reason and morality to guide its followers in the ways that tradtional religions use the commandments and the bible, so it was considered flimsy and unrealistic.  The idea of the seperation of church and state has sense been distorted, especially recently, to mean that religion has no place in politics.  In fact, religion has always played a role in politics serving as an idea of the moral compass of the individual candidate.  Conservatism as presented by the founding fathers would take no particular position on relgion much to the chagrin of modern day liberals who commonly use the the term "the religious right".  Generally conservatives are religious people, but it is by no means a necessary badge in the historical sense of conservatism. 

Conservative principles at their roots can be applied today with as great an impact.  More people consider themselves conservative than ever before.  The number is nearly 2 or 3 times that of people who consider themselves liberal.  So why is the message not catching on?  Check back for my next edition which will chronicle Ronald Reagan's conservative message and how it could be applied today.

John McCain and his campaign have officially proven the fact that the MSM chose the Republican party candidate for us.  The McCain campaign, less than 48 hours after being beaten by Obama in the election have trashed Sarah Palin as the reason for their loss.  Not ONLY are they blaming Palin for the loss but they are egregiously attacking her.  Campaign leaks have suggested that Sarah Palin didn't know which countries were in NAFTA or that Africa was a continent instead of a country.  They also claim she spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on unauthorized clothing purchases characterizing it as "Wasilla hillbillies running rampant at Neiman Marcus across the country".  McCain while he should be celebrated as a war hero is far from a conservative and only just barely can be considered even a moderate Republican.  At best McCain's campaign was incompetent especially in how they silenced the conservative voice of Palin and at worst a pawn to represent Republicans while Obama ran roughshod through the election.  McCain refused to question Obama about Wright, Ayers, Phleger and all his other radical friends, but he is silent while his campaign attempts to assassinate the character of a great American Sarah Palin.  McCain's campaign has spent more time attacking Palin than they did addressing credible issues of Obama's judgement.  McCain won't be allowed to further erode the Republican party or to trash the conservative movement.  John McCain, please stop claiming to be one of us.  Move on!

It's wonderful that we have a black president, but did we have to vote in someone who will destroy our country and kill thousands with his dangerous policies?  You people flat out suck.  Why couldn't you keep your popular votes in American Idol and away from the most important job in the world?

Two gutless Black Panther members barred the door of a polling place in Philadelphia by brandishing nightsticks and intimidating Republican voters wanting to cast ballots for anyone other than Barack Hussein Obama.  This is not a shock, anyone with any intelligence knew that the Black Panthers, ACORN and other racist/liberal organizations would do anything they could to block Republicans and silence Conservative voices.  The Black Panthers have a particularyly bloody history of being nothing more than the black version of the KKK.  These racist imbeciles are mostly ingorant and uneducated thugs who are told by their black masters to shut up anyone who disagrees with them.  They're cowards and weak despite their intimidation tactics.  Unlike the KKK, the Black Panthers are celebrated by the liberal left and are allowed to continue to operate without complaint from the same people who justifiably dismantled the KKK.  Black Panther sects are located nationwide and generally look for the weakest citizens to pick on.  Exactly like the KKK, Black Panther punks will gang up on unsuspecting white people and discriminate based simply on their race.  So here they stand, two menacing black men, brandishing nightsticks at any non Obama voter and declaring that Obama will win this election no matter what.  I'm so angry that I won't say what I'm thinking, but what I will say right now is that if these punk Black Panthers had ANY guts whatsoever, they would grow a set and perhaps educate themselves then debate or attack someone like myself.  A former Marine who has NO problem with going a round or two with some of these radical lunatics.  Mano y Mano, one on one, I dare one of them to brandish a nightstick at me, or to try and intimidate me.  That being said, they wouldn't do that.  Nor would they or their masters step onto a stage and debate issues with even someone like me.  Most of them haven't the intellectual capability to understand the idea of a debate, and even the masters know that their ideas are weak and full of holes.  Black Panther and KKK politics are dead.  You THUGS LOSERS are over.  Stop hiding and come out and fight or shut your stupid mouths.

Comment by Tom from Florida - On Fox Forum @ Fox News.com written by Fox executive VP John Moody

"NOW ENJOY!

Just for fun ..

What if Keith Olbermann interviewed John McCain?…

“A FEW GOOD, ALMOST LUCID, MOMENTS”

(With apologies to Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise)

JOHN MCCAIN: You want answers?

KEITH OLBERMANN: I think I’m entitled to them.

JOHN MCCAIN: You want answers?

KEITH OLBERMANN: I want the truth!

JOHN MCCAIN: You can’t handle the truth!

Son, we live in a world that has a certain, precious amount of wealthy people. And those wealthy people have the right to protect what they have, any way they can. If they don’t do it, who’s gonna do it?

You? You, Keith Olbermann? I, as their candidate, have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for those lower and middle classes and you curse the people who give them jobs. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that all those unemployed, underemployed and soon-to-be-unemployed people, while tragic, probably didn’t work very hard anyway.(Look at how little they earned compared to CEOs’ salaries and their well-deserved golden parachutes!!!)

And the existence of trickle down Republican economics, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, is what has raised that free market tide so that all boats, big and small, could float…You don’t want the truth.

Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about these facts, like with your friends at Georgetown parties, you want me on call. You need me on call at three in the morning.

We use phrases like “loose regulations, squishy credit lines and a warm place to count the profits”…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending our captains of industry. You use ‘em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who still rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very economic bubble I helped George Bush to provide, then questions the manner in which we provided it!

I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you grow some patriotic gonads and eschew socialism.

Either way, I don’t give a d#mn what you think you’re entitled to!

KEITH OLBERMANN: Did you support George Bush and all his works?

JOHN MCCAIN:(quietly) I did the job that the Republican Party sent me to do.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Did you support George Bush and his economic policies?

JOHN MCCAIN: You’re godd#mn right I did!!!"
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let's do one that is just as ridiculous, with Sean hannity Interviewing Obama.  See, it's already more ridiculous than the McCain one done above.

NOW ENJOY!

Just for fun ..

What if Sean Hannity interviewed Barack Obama?…

“A FEW GOOD, STUTTER FILLED, MOMENTS”

(With apologies to Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise)

BARACK OBAMA: You want answers?

SEAN HANNITY: I think I’m entitled to them.

BARACK OBAMA: You want answers?

Sean Hannity: I want the truth!

BARACK OBAMA: You can’t handle the truth!

Son, we uh live in a nation that has a uh certain, uh capitalist uhm tendancies. And those racist uhm tendancies have no place in the uh world.  uh Socialists have to defeat uhm capitalism now, any way they can. If they don’t do it, who’s uh uh gonna do it?

You? You, uh Sean Hannity? I, as their uhm candidate, have a greater uh responsibility than you can possibly uhm fathom. You uhm weep for those upper and uh middle classes and you uhm curse the people who want to uh run your life. You have that uh luxury. You have the uhm luxury of not knowing what I uh know: that capitalisms uhm death and the subsequent uh destruction of ah America, while uhm tragic, is going to improve the uh lives of elite liberals.

And the uhm existence of tax and uh spend liberals, while uhm grotesque and incomprehensible to uh you, is what has moved our uh uhm uh country close enough to uh Socialism that I can uhm sneak it in behind the backs of these,  you know, stupid American uhm rednecks…You don’t want the uh truth.

Because uh deep down, in uhm places you don’t talk about uh these facts, at Fox News uh parties, you want me at the uhm top. You uh need me at the uhm top.

We use uh phrases like “defecit uhm spending, change we need and spread the uh wealth around”…we use uh these words as the uhm backbone to a life spent ah attacking your captains of industry. You use ‘em as a uhm punchline.

I have neither the uh time nor the uh i-i-inclination to explain myself to a uh man who rises and sleeps under the uhm blanket of the very economic uh bubble I helped ah Barney Frank to provide, then uhm questions the manner in which we uh provided it!

I’d rather you just said uh, thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I uhm suggest you be uh prepared to uhm be exiled after we uhm, institute the uh, fairness doctrine.

Either uh way, I don’t uhm give a d#mn what you uh think you’re entitled uhm to!

Sean Hannity: Did you hear Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all his words?

BARACK OBAMA:(quietly) I uhm did the job that uh Bill Ayers sent me to uh do.

SEAN HANNITY: DDid you hear Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all his words?

JOHN MCCAIN: You’re uh godd#mn right I did!!!

Barack Obama and John McCain with help from the media and "economists" have turned the subject of the economy into a concept that many Americans believe is "above their pay grade".  This could not be further from the truth.  While macroeconomics has become an increasingly distorted and unnecessarily difficult subject to learn and keep up with, the fundamentals of our economy have strong roots.  The concepts that make the American economy work are rooted in logic as opposed to the shifting ideals of Socialist economic principles.  The basics of "Econ 101" should be familiar to the majority of Americans who have atleast attended a semester of college.  They start with the simple pattern of supply and demand.  Supply of course refers to the amount of an item available for ditribution and demand refers to the public desire for that item.  A larger supply of a product in relation to its demand drives down prices and a smaller supply of a product in relation to its demand drives up the price.  As demand goes up, so in turn does the price.  So if I have 500 widgets and I have a demand of 500 customers I know exactly what my product is worth based on my costs of production and desired profit levels.  If I have 500 widgets and 1000 customers, I know that the widgets are worth more and therefore my price goes up.  This is considered a fair increase in profit margin because the demand now outweighs the supply.  If I have 500 widgets and only 250 customers, I know that demand for my product is low and therefore I must drop the price to compete.  Competition does complicate the matter a bit adding in the variables of consumer choice, variations on original prducts, improvements and market share.  Even that element doesn't put the subject of economics out of the reach of even the most numb high school freshman.  Anyone who has ever bought anything can tell you the basic law of supply and demand and even work in competition.  So why does it seem so complicated on a national economic level?  Because macroeconomists make a living by overcomplicating things.  I'm horrible at math, if I look at en equation that is move complicated than 5 + X = 10 my eyes start to shake and i get a headache but even I can understand the nations economy. 
           The U.S. economy is based on the capitalist system.  Capitalism at its core is a market based approach.  It allows the greatest freedom for consumers and businesses alike and in a true capitalist system does not require or allow government intervention.  In a true capitalist system, the checks and balances on businesses to ensure that they do not abuse customers come from the consumers themselves.  Capitalism breeds competition and competition necessarily provides choice to consumers which forces businesses to conduct themselves honorably or risk losing market share.  This is called a market correction and it is an inherent balance within the capitalist market.  By contrast, Socialist systems, such as the Communist systems prevalent in China and Russia allow the governments complete control over the markets.  In this type of system, companies are either entirely owned by the government, partially owned or can be seized.  This provides the ruling party with the power to influence the markets in any direction they feel benefits them, and does not provide comsumers with choices.  The American Capitalist system has in place some checks and balances that go above and beyond consumers.  In the American system, the government provides oversight to the system.  This oversight has been perverted over the years by socialist/marxist policies intended to give the U.S. government more power over the market, but at its core it does have merit.  In a pure Capitalist market, the one problem that can exist is collusion.  When two or more competitors in a particular market come together and make a deal to share markets and work together to defraud the public by artificially driving up costs, you see collusion at its core.  An example of collusion is OPEC.  In the case of OPEC, you have socialist nations interacting with a capitalist world market.  These nations joined together to form an alliance, share markets and pool resources as well as artificaially influence the price of oil.  We've all seen how this type of collusion can be harmful without a powerful oversight and how this eliminates competition and defrauds the public.  Early in the creation or our nations economy, the capitalist model was altered to allow government, on behalf of the people,  the ability to prosecute businesses who engage in harmful acts or collude with others to defraud the people.  This role of oversight was meant to be only that, oversight.  What is oversight?  The government should be keeping a sharp eye on the business practices of businesses, randomly inspecting records and listening to consumer concerns.  They should be paying attention to the basics of economics and ensuring that no injustices are occuring that the market is not correcting itself.  They should be watching for pockets of collusion and stepping in when companies take advantage of consumers.  You may be asking, "Well isn't that what they are doing now with the bailouts?"  The answer is NO!  They're perverting these authorities and are actually injecting socialism into the system.  The government is now purchasing stake in companies, completely taking over companies, and becoming an active invester in the markets.  Remember the examples of Russia and China?  In countries like those, the market is allowed to work only until the business proves profitable.  At that point, the government steps in and takes over the company.  Sometimes the process is gradual, with the government purchasing stake (stock) in the company and then eventually taking over a majority and finally the whole company.  Other times it is done in one fel swoop with the government seizing the entire company in one shot.  Sound familiar?  That's what the government has done with with Fannie and Freddie.  These entities actually go a step further, they were created by the government, they're called Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE's), and the CEO's were all but appointed by the government.  The government has also purchased stake in AIG and a number of other insurance and financial institutions under the guise of "bailing them out".  They've also began purchasing in effect, the homes and deeds to businesses of Americans who were granted risky loans by the GSE's.  This is part of the reason why the recent bailout packages were rejected by most Americans.  With our economic system, the solution to such problems as we face today are much simpler.  Instead of Socializing the financial institutions, the government should have done what it claimed to be doing and infused the market with capital and allow the market to correct itself.  Yes, it's true that more than a few of these financial companies got themselves in hot water but they should have been allowed to fail.  In the financial markets, the assets would have been sold off and any cash would have been insured by the government, another check that the American Capitalist system has added.  Let's also not forget that the largest single cause of the current turmoil is risky home loans granted to people who did not have the ability to keep up with the payments, sponsored and MANDATED by the U.S. Goverment through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  How could they have infused the markets better?  First, inject private capital into the market by eliminating the capital gains tax for a period of no less than 12 months and no more than 36 months.  This would provide investors with more flexibility and more money to put into new and existing businesses and help to add liguidity tot he market.  Second, reduce corporate and income taxes to a flat 15%-20% for the same period.  This would allow consumers more cash on hand and allow businesses more profits to reinvest as capital.  A move like this increases consumer confidence in the markets and helps businesses deal with tough economic times.  The third step is to repeal the mark to market accounting rules which substantially diminished the real value of assets and also to repeal the Sarbannes-Oxley bill which has failed to live up to its intentions to provide oversight where it was necessary.  In place of these procedures, the market must be allowed to determine the value of assets/securities on its own with no government intervention and also new government oversight regulations must be implemented to ensure that the proper oversight is provided where necessary.  While corporations like Alcoa, the big three automakers, Reynolds Metals and Kraft Foods are subject to SOX testing, GSE's like Fannie and Freddie were able to slip under the radar as were many other financial institutions.  Many of the SOX testing standards create unnecessary costs, and cause more problems than the solve but, there are some standards within the SOX testing standards which must be monitored to ensure stability.  Finally, the government should not have purchased AIG, seized Fannie and Freddie or taken a stake in financial institution by purchasing troubled assets.  Instead, the government should have dissolved their GSE's auctioned the assets they held and offered incentives to companies who purchased those risky loans.  They should have allowed the AIG crisis to play out fully instead of attacking the problem with a buyout.  The most likely scenario is that the company would have been absorbed into another insurance company (like Progressive) who does not engage in the excesses that AIG does.  Another avenue of approach would have been for the government to insure AIG assets for the short term, allowing the company to fail without tanking the assets.  The government would then have to have strict timelines to get rid of the insured assets and distribute them back into the market.  Finally, on the subject of the "troubled assets", repeal of the mark to market accounting rules would drastically change the value of these currently "worthless" assets.  It would also keep the assets in the market and what that does is keep what's called "real property" in the system that can be used as collateral.  Before closing, we should also touch on something else that has been floated around to scare people away from investigating the economy.  "Commercial paper" is nothing more than a trust relationship between businesses and the banks that lend to them.  Chances are if you own a small to medium sized business and do business at a local bank who holds few if any of these "troubled assets", you've had little to no trouble borrowing against the value of your business to carry on as usual with payroll and normal business operations.  In the case of large corporations dealing with larger banks, many on the international scene and holding large amounts of "troubled assets", more is being asked of businesses to convince the banks that they are credit worthy.  If the steps above were taken instead of the Socialist panic that ensued in the recent weeks, we would be seeing much better circumstances than we see now.  There would be much less instability and much more liquidity in the market.
       In closing, we have allowed "intellectuals" to cloud our view of reality and cloak the simplicity of the economy in equations and extra syllabals.  The fact is that the average American can understand the economy, Barack Obama, John McCain and Barney Frank aren't any smarter than us, in fact, they appear to be dumber than we are.  They don't even understand that dealing with problems at a level as close to the core as possible will produce the best results.  Instead they believe that reinventing the entire economy is the best path to follow in order to get out of this mess.  I've got a solution, bring congress together, and let's have them all attend an "Econ 101" class, taxpayer funded of course.  I'd rather put out the few hundred thousand dollars that would cost then another 700 billion dollars next time these clowns decide to "fix the economy".
        

Despite calls from concerned Delawareans, Congressman Mike Castle went ahead and voted for House Bill 3997 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.  Instead of choosing the path out of this crisis, that poses the least risk to consumers, by eliminating key elements of the government’s excessive attacks on the market, Congressman Castle chose once again to vote with his liberal friends Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and others in the House of Representatives.  Fortunately, the measure did not pass as other less liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans voted down a measure that would have further eroded the already struggling capitalist market.  Congressman Castle has once again proven that he is not voting for what Delawareans want, but what is expedient for him in his political circles.  Congressman Castle doesn’t have a handle on the realities of the situation, and he refuses to listen to his own constituents.  In fact, one of the proposals that was in fact proposed by myself, was to eliminate the capital gains tax for a period of 12-36 months, cut the corporate and wage taxes to 15% for the same period, repeal the mark to market accounting procedures and the Sarbanes-Oxley bill that have led to this disaster.  Had Congressman Castle actually studied the plan laid before him, he may have also noticed that this would also address the bailouts of Fannie, Freddie and AIG.  First, AIG must be returned to the market, allowed to either fail or be purchased and the only negotiable area there is if we can back the assets with government insurance.  Also, Fannie and Freddie MUST be dissolved and their assets must be auctioned in the market.  Oversight must be present, yet the government must restrain their restrictions on the market to cases of corporate excess or injustice.  Golden parachutes must be cut deeply for executives of failing institutions and severance packages must be reasonable for other employees who will lose their jobs if the company fails.  Again, Mike Castle has shown his lack of leadership and conservative values.  It’s time for the right kind of change in Washington.  Remember that when you vote on November 4th.  Given his opponent this year, a bigger liberal than he, perhaps write in votes are the way to go.

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson wants $700 billion to bail out Wall Street.  Congress wants to add in money to bail out the housing market and they also want shares in the companies they provide TAXPAYER dollars to.  Does anyone else find this unacceptable?  Anyone who knows me knows that about 90% of the time, I am in complete agreement with conservative radio hosts like Hannity and Glenn Beck.  This time I have to beg to differ with Glenn.  Yesterday, Glenn suggested that this intervention was in fact necessary.  I don’t see it that way.  What I see is a government that has grown increasingly powerful and greedy.  Remember, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke are Wall Street insiders.  Golden parachutes to executives of failed corporations and no penalties for those who have brought this crisis on the American people are only two of the parts of this bill that concern me.  It is absolutely essential that we as Americans speak up and speak out and scream from one side of this country to another that we will not allow this government, or any other to drive us further into socialism.  Hank’s bank draft won’t stop at $700 billion.  Most analysts predict that the call will go out for trillions of dollars in aid to Wall Street.  You must call your Congressman, your Senator and tell your friends to do the same.  The time is now to act to retake our country.  Republicans and Democrats alike are actually supporting this unprecedented level of a power play.  Reminiscent of the USSR in the 1980’s, American faces a series of threats.  While we fight terror in numerous locations, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Russians are arming Venezuela, supporting Iran and North Korea in the UN and working quietly with the Chinese to create a new financial and energy world order.  Meanwhile, many of our financial institutions and other major corporations are owned wholly or in part by outside nations.  America faces a grave challenge in the form of energy supplies.  America is also in the midst of a highly contested election that could shift the balance of power forever and ultimately determine the fate of democracy worldwide.  In listening to the Senate Banking Committee hearing on this, I am encouraged to hear very few if any of our Senators jumping at the chance to hand out money to Bernanke and Paulson.  While our mission as citizens is not yet accomplished, it’s clear that we have begun to act and must continue to do so.  I’m calling my Senators and Congressman.  I urge you to do the same.  Tell them to block this bill and ensure that Hank and Ben don’t steal trillions from the people of our great nation.

This is for Whoopi.  When you had John McCain on, he mentioned strict constitutionalists judges.  You quipped, "Should I be worried about being a slave?"  He never really answered it the way it should have been answered.  Here is what you need to understand.  Whoopi, no where in the constitution is slavery shown as ok.  In fact, the term "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.." was meant to be life, liberty and property.  However, the founders instinctively knew that slave owners, some of which were writers of the document, would use property to justify slavery.  It was for that reason, that the founders removed the word property and replaced it with "the pursuit of happiness".  Constitutionalists judges are simply judges who follow the separation of power from the constitution.  The judicial branch was never intended to make law (i.e. Roe v. Wade).  That law SHOULD have been legislated and voted on by the entire population through their elected representatives in congress.  THAT is what John McCain and millions of Americans want to see.  9 people in robes should not be writing American law.  It should be up to the will of the people.  I do hope you will address this publicly as your comment was a disservice to your audience. 

On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and James Lockehart, director of the newly formed Federal Housing Finance Agency, announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will operate in conservatorship.  Lockehart said, “I have determined that the companies cannot continue to operate safely and soundly and fulfill their critical public missions without significant action to address our concerns”.  Freddie and Fannie combined own $5.4 trillion in mortgage debt.  The government has taken on responsibility for these loans and has taken control by deposing the CEO’s of the government sponsored companies.  To many this may seem like a good thing, solvency in the market and security in the corporations appears to be on the horizon.  In fact, we must look at what the government has done.  Our government is already in debt, in fact, it has been in debt, even during surplus years since we abandoned the Constitution in the 1940’s.  Before the great social programs of that time, our constitution limited the power of government to living within its means and spending responsibly.  Our government is not, in and of itself a private company who makes money, nor is it a worker who earns money for providing a service or product.  Our government relies on the money provided by taxpayers and other fees paid to the government.  The United States government is a shell that was originally intended to do three things, provide a legislature, a commander in chief and a Supreme Court.

            The legislature was created in order to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erecting of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. “.  We have run afoul of this original intention via our many amendments to the Constitution.  In fact, our current government has come dangerously close to violating the Constitution.  “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”  While the government does follow this, they do so in an obscene manner and do not feel obligated to spend responsibly.  They post convoluted reports about their spending habits and have mired tax dollars in so many failing programs as to cause the reports to be unreadable by the average American.  This was NOT the intention of the founding fathers.  Our legislature was supposed to be transparent but thanks to the progressive movement, what we have is a corrupt government going on spending sprees with our tax dollars.

            The second duty of the American government is to provide a commander in chief.  “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.  He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.“  Amendments have allowed the President much more freedom than was intended and we have seen that through the use of Presidential power to commit troops to war.  Also, it is likely that, given a neutral or partisan affiliated congress, the President can be assured of seeing a high percentage of their policies instituted during their term in office.  This is quite scary given the socialist changes promised by Obama today.  If Obama is greeted in the White House by a two thirds majority Democrat Congress, we will see a drastically different America than what we see today, one that will resemble a land more like the USSR in the early 1980’s.

            The final duty of the American government is to provide a Supreme Court.  “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”  The Supreme Court was intended to balance the government by adding a system which could be used to affect punishment for violating U.S. law.  It was also established to rule on issues based on the ideas created in the Constitution.  You’ll notice that the Constitution does not specifically state that the Supreme Court will establish the constitutionality of any law or issue.  The reason for that is because later on, in Article IV, the founders wrote in that anything not mentioned specifically in the Constitution shall fall to the individual states to decide upon, otherwise known as States Rights Issues.  When the Supreme Court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of laws, part of the founders ideals for the Judicial Powers was eroded.  The Constitution is clear in its intention to allow the states to decide for themselves how to establish social policy.  Only through progressive reforms such as The New Deal and The Great Society, have we seen the types of powers that the founders sought to ensure did not occur.  Judges have been called upon not only to preside of cases of law, but to interpret the Constitution.  This was never intended by the founders.  Even more egregious is the idea that Supreme Court judges ought to legislate from the bench.  It is abundantly clear that the founders only intended laws, such as Roe v. Wade to be legislated by Congress and not by the Supreme Court.  More to the point, it’s clear from the language that social policies such as abortion ought to be reserved to the individual states to make the decision.  Granting the Supreme Court power to rule on Constitutional issues is a further erosion of the initial intent of the founding fathers.  That said, if any such power is to be bestowed upon the Supreme Court, the power should go only so far as to interpret the original intent of the constitution and not to create laws.
            All of this exposes the erosion of the Constitution.  This also shows the distortion and hijacking of America by progressive socialists.  Fannie and Freddie are only the beginning.  Just ahead is the bailout of the big 3 automakers and beyond that the oil companies and perhaps a bank or two.  With a 9 trillion dollar national debt, and promises to spend trillions more, the question becomes, who pays for this?  The shell government does not earn its own cash, the American taxpayers pay for it.  Keep that in mind the next time you see a 55 billion dollar government bailout.  That’s your 55 billion dollars.

NBC Chief Whitehouse Correspondent David Gregory on MSNBC’s Race for the White House made veiled threats against the McCain campaign in relation to the McCain campaigns response to the relentless and unfair media bias and attacks. Gregory asked if McCain was prepared to possibly lose the White House and if rank and file Republicans had spoken to McCain about his campaigns war with the media. This is only one in a long line of attacks and criticisms aimed at the McCain campaign as the liberal news media attempts to assert its dominance. You see, the liberal media, defined as the following TV stations, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN Headline (with the exception of Glenn Beck), ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. These stations are dominated by liberal personalities who cannot help but interject their own bias against anyone who does not follow liberal political lines. The liberal media also refers to most print media as many liberal personalities are writers, editors or owners of print media outlets. These outlets seek out the fringe of liberal politics and lend credence to their radical views. We also heard David Gregory further press the idea that simply because Sarah Palin has 5 children, she may have trouble being VP. These are the same people who promote working women having families. They also ignore Todd Palin’s role as a father and his ability to raise the children while Gov. Palin is working as VP. They promote sexism against Sarah Palin even as they abhor it when used against Hillary Clinton. The liberal news outlets have been in the tank for Barack Obama since he announced and they’ve only continued to increase their bias as the McCain campaign picks up steam. The worst is far from over, in fact it’s yet to come. The left out facts about “Troopergate” (isn’t it funny how since Nixon everything ends in ‘gate?) are only the beginning. You won’t hear from the liberal news media that the Alaska State Trooper in question not only threatened Gov. Palins parents, but also was using a stun gun on his daughter. You also won’t hear that she is the current GOVERNOR OF ALASKA, and not simply the mayor of small town Wasilla, AK. Oh, and since I’m watching and rambling today, who the heck is Rachael Maddow? Air America? Isn’t that the failed radio group of liberal idiots that no one listened to? I also see that MSNBC has established an office in Wasilla to try and dig up dirt on Sarah Palin to keep her busy defending herself in the media. They brought up a sports complex that she played a part in building in the town as if this complex was a bad thing. Last I checked, those are the types of things that we build to make communities better. The funny part is, that the American people can see through all of this crap in the liberal media. They can see through it and make their own opinions, and it’s showing. The race is close and McCain gains more permanent ground every day. With Palin in his corner, McCain is poised to overtake Obama and win this election by a landslide. Biden is a nonentity, Obama is a fraud, McCain is a hero and Palin is a strong Conservative.

I am the parent of a child attending Albert H. Jones Elementary School in the Christina School District.  I recently attended a PTA meeting for the school with my fiance and we were pleasantly surprised and very impressed by the schools new administrator Meredith Murray.  Ms. Murray spoke today, I'd met her briefly once before during registration, but during her introduction to the PTA parents, she told us that she thought of the children at Albert Jones as her own and wants the best for them.  She pledged administrator and teacher involvement and hard work to go along with the efforts put forth by the parents.  Ms. Murray is a big thinker, who challenged the schools PTA to raise more money this year in order to help fund field trips for the students of the school.  Ms. Murray has showed a willingness to step out of the box and go above and beyond the call of duty as an administrator.  She also wants the parents to be more involved in the education of their children and create a learning environment that is more like a community learning center.  This will allow children to not only be instructed by the teachers, but also to learn from the parents.  It will involve the parents as true partners in the learning enviornment and is a great plan.  It puts the ball in the court of both educators and parents.  Ms. Murray is a shining example of the good within our public school system.  I have consistently spoken up in favor of Charter and Private Schools because of their ability to involve the parents and communities in order to create a constant learning enviornment.  Ms. Murray has brought that same type of communal learning to the Chrstina School District.  Ms. Murray never once spoke of relying on the school district or the state government to fund our childrens education.  She's asked us as parents to put the onus on ourselves.  Ms. Murray is an exciting breath of fresh air in our public school system and she appears to want to take the school to new levels beyond what the government provides.  She is an example of administrators who seek not simply to meet state or national standards, but blast through the ceiling and set new standards for all schools.  My fiance and I have pledged to help Ms. Murray in her push to make Albert H. Jones a great school and other PTA parents have done the same.  We look forward to working with the PTA and the educators and administrators to provide our children with the best possible education.  I am very happy with what I have seen so far and I hope that we as parents can all make a difference.

Since the party split of 1824 when the Democrat-Republican party became 2 separate parties, progressives or liberal democrats have sought more government oversight and fewer individual rights. Federalists, Whigs and later Republicans, who believed that the rights granted in the Constitution were necessary to achieve the type of nation they sought to create, were loudest and garnered the most support for their position. It was not until the Progressive movement from 1890-1920 that progressives began to take a stand and raise their voice. Progressives were able to grab the platforms of Womens Suffarage, income taxes and prohibition and focus their voice and energy on engaging Conservatives on them. Progressives were not done with these issues, instead Roosevelt came along in the 30’s during the Great Depression and promised his “New Deal” promising to pull America out of it’s darkest days. Roosevelt’s new deal was a giant new step in the Progressive movement. In fact, the “First New Deal” and subsequent “Second New Deal” became a comprehensive redistribution of wealth and power in America and lead the country away from the intended nation of the founding fathers and more towords a socialist state. Roosevelt has since become the great legacy of the progressives. Since that time, there has been a constant battle between conservatives and progressives(now called liberals) regarding how the country should be run. From Roosevelt and perhaps Kennedy, although his term was too short to determine how progressive he actually was, until Jimmy Carter, there was not a strong voice either way and the role of the President seemed to be assumed by moderates from either side with one scandal after another. Carter was, well he was an abomination as a President. He failed at just about everything he tried and while that is not necessarily a reason to disqualify someone (see Lincoln) in the case of Jimmy Carter, he not only failed but took America with him. Carter forced conservation and encouraged wearing sweaters (shades of tire guages?) in his attempt to solve the 1970’s energy crisis. Carter didn’t go after new domestic sources of oil, instead he favored sweaters and wood burning stoves. Carter’s progressive support base waned as the energy crisis dragged on and by 1980 when Ronald Reagan ran against Carter for the White House, Americans were fed up with the socialist lack of answers. Reagan ran on a platform of “bold colors, not pale pastels”. He highlighted the differences between socialist progressives and free market conservatives. Reagan appealed to many Americans because he promised to get the government out of the way and let the people themselves define the answers and solutions to the problems America faced. Progressives were increasingly quieted during his two terms in office because they saw that America was not going to listen to them. Reagan drew distinctions betweent he socialist regime in Russia, where freedoms Americans held dear were not granted and where the slightest hint of possible dissention to government control often led to death. It was because of Reagan’s strong language in condenming the socialists in Russia, that the progressive voice was silenced. Since Reagan the trend toword more moderate Presidents has happened again. George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush cannot be considered boldly different from one another. While all their positions differ from each other, there is too much common ground to classify them as remarkably different from any of the others. During this time Progressives have seen an opportunity to increase their influence. Especially during the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq which pushed George W. Bush’s approval rating to the lowest marks recorded, progresives have been more apt to speak out with their ideas. As the recent economic and energy crisies have caused a larger divide between Conservative principled ideas and Socialist liberal agendas, liberal Democrats like Maxine Waters and Barack Obama have been more bold than ever in speaking out in favor of socialism. Not even during the Roosevelt or Carter campaigns were the words socialized or universal used to describe big government ventures. Now, with Obama leading in the polls, progrssives like Maxine Waters, who said at a recent hearing with oil executives that she “would be all about socializing..I mean the government taking over, and running all of your companies”, are becoming more brazen in the use of the words socialize, socilists and universal. Liberal Democrats from New York to San Francisico are beginning to push forward the agenda of the government stepping in and taking over banks, energy companies, oil companies, healthcare companies, insurance companies and educational institutions. Progressives have been able to build their ranks throughout the years and positioned many of their own within the higher education system, the political arena and in major business areas. The progresive sphere of influence continues to grow as the generations cycle and more and more of our children become indoctrinated that the government knows best. Much like the Russians quietly buying up energy sources and the Chinese disguising their communism with free enterprise business markets, socialist liberals have quietly infiltrated and taken over schools like Harvard, Yale, NYU, Princeton and other major Universities. With Obama as the new party leader, pushing forth a socilist agenda behind the façade of a historic moment, the progressive movement had begun to flourish. While the language still permeates the landscape, recent poll numbers show that not all of America is buying into the hype. It appears there are still some Americans who can look past the color of Baracks skin and focus on the content of his message and character. This may be the biggest blunder progressives have made since prohibition.