MyFoxPhilly

Is that tune in your head now? I wonder if Fixx singer, Cy Curnin is ready to kill himself over that one...or is he laughing to the bank as the rest of us are throwing objects at our tv each time Toyota pollutes our airwaves with it? I use the term now because it represents the post election opposition to Obama. Since he has indeed been elected as President, it's time for his fair shake. I take the attitude now that the game is his to play and we can only form our opinions based on his performance not speculation. So far what I've heard hasn't been so good (trying war criminals in our court system, more socialistic buyouts, sudden shift on tax policy etc). Still, until he's in office and has a record to be judged, he faces zero opposition. I do wonder though, as Obama receivers open arm greetings from Bush and the media, wouldn't it have been nice if the Liberals had offered that very same treatment to Bush when ELECTED in 2000? It seems so strange that our newly elected President has already been called Camelot part II and that front page stories discuss what dog he should choose. Wow what a double standard we live with!

Anyway, I don't typically like to just cut and paste blogs since it's just as easy to post the link, but I think this one written by Glenn Beck producer Stu sums up that stance very well....

"Is it me? Or have the right been far more sensible and gracious to Barack Obama since his election then the left ever was to George W. Bush when he was elected?

Immediately with Bush, he “stole” the election and he was “selected not elected.” That didn’t go away, even after winning all the recounts, the media recounts, and winning re-election four years later.

Bush has been widely praised for his graciousness during the transition, and McCain’s concession speech was very classy.

But it’s even happening on that evil talk radio. An Ohio paper ran a story about local republicans, where Glenn’s response was mentioned:

With a photo of vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin still sitting atop a meeting room table at Ed Pickens' Cafe on Main, (Richland County Republican Chairman Mark) Arnold urged Republicans to support the incoming administration. He quoted conservative talk show host Glenn Beck from a recent show, in which the Fox commentator chastised a Georgia man who'd called in to say he refused to accept Barack Obama as president.

Explaining that this same attitude caused problems for President George W. Bush in 2000, Beck said, "How very un-American of you. He is the American president. ... this is the way our system works."

Link

It’s not like Glenn is changing any of his ideals—it’s just that their guy won, fair and square. The country is bigger than the party.

Also, Rush Limbaugh said:

"Barack Obama is my president of the United States. I couldn't care less where he was born, what his name is, how old he is, or the color of his skin. He's not black. He's not white. He's not Asian-American or Mexican. He's not Chavez's brother or Islamic. I don't see Americans as members of groups. I see individual human beings. It is his ideas I am terrifically, tremendously worried about."

These are the quotes that don’t make their way into the liberal blogs.

Why is there such a massive difference between the left and the right’s response? My guess is a combination of:

1) The right generally starts with the assumption that this country is good, and it works. We respect it--even when it doesn’t go our way--and we tend to blame ourselves for not being competent before blaming the other side for being unfair. Some of that is a form of personal (and somewhat blind) patriotism, at least for me. This country is bigger than one candidate. The flag wavin’ side of me doesn’t think that Obama could ruin this country even if he tried. The constitution and capitalism won’t let him. (Of course, if he ignores them…) Plus, I refuse to let politicians affect me that much.

2) We really hated the way Bush was treated. He wasn’t given a chance, and we remember that. It pisses us off. Much like Sarah Palin, Bush was viciously attacked from the second he appeared on the national stage---most of the time unfairly. Part of this response (at least for me) is a promise I made to myself years ago—that if Kerry (or now Obama) was elected—they would get a clean slate from me.

So today, I give Barack Obama a 100% approval rating. If and when he screws up, I’ll deduct points. Let’s make it a maximum of 10 points for each individual annoying event. If he does something great—I’ll add points. I’m that kind of guy. Let’s see how long he stays above 50%.

I don’t think Obama will be a good president. But I HOPE for a CHANGE in that opinion. I hope he’s the greatest president in history. I hope the pre-election promises of perfection are realized. I doubt they will be, but I want to at least give him a chance to screw it up before I say he screwed it up.

Regardless, he’ll be my president until he leaves office---even if his nationwide approval rating is zero (which will be impossible unless the on air staff of MSNBC is left out of the sample.)

Chris Matthews: “My Job Is to Help This Country”

Chris Matthews might need a refresher course…in Journalism 101. Talking about the Rahm Emanuel rumors with Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Rick Stengel, and Lawrence O’Donnell on today’s Morning Joe, Matthews declared that his job as a journalist is “to make this thing work, this new presidency work.” At which Scarborough et al pounced:

MATTHEWS: You know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.
SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about your being a journalist.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, that’s my job. My job is to help this country.
SCARBOROUGH: So your job as a journalist is to make this presidency work?
MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully, because this country needs a successful presidency, more than anything right now….
BRZEZINSKI: Well, I’m a little confused about what the job is here, because of course we all want things to work, but I’m not sure it’s our job. Rick Stengel, in terms of, when someone is—
MATTHEWS: How can you not root for the success of a new president?
BRZEZINSKI: You know what? I just think, well, it’s going to be important to ask questions.
SCARBOROUGH: As Americans, Chris Matthews, we are all rooting for the success of Barack Obama. America is at a perilous time. But you just talked about being a journalist, and your job as a journalist is not to question motives—and then, two seconds later, you said your job was to make this presidency a success. We’re just—that’s curious.

Curious, indeed. The job of a politician, Chris—say, I don’t know, a Pennsylvania senator—is “to make this work successfully.” That is not the job of a journalist.

The Heritage Foundation today asked Barack Obama to immediately pull two ads that misrepresent the views of Heritage’s Rea Hederman. The campaign has released a 30-second TV ad with false information and repeats it on the campaign website. The following letter was sent by Heritage lawyer Alan P. Dye to the Obama campaign.

Dear Senator Obama:

Two recent campaign advertisements seriously misrepresent the views of my client, The Heritage Foundation. They suggest, quite falsely, that The Heritage Foundation and one of its analysts support your tax plan.

The print ad on your Website as well as your ad entitled “Try This” reference a quote from policy analyst Rea Hederman. In fact, Mr. Hederman never said what is quoted there. Rather, the words you quote are from a New York Sun reporter who interviewed Mr. Hederman and summarized his views erroneously.

That the reporter’s summary is erroneous is evident from the actual quotes from Mr. Hederman presented in the article, which make it quite clear that Mr. Hederman believes your tax plan would be bad not only for the country, but for the middle class. By omitting the direct quotes from Heritage that are contained in the article and attributing to Heritage a conflicting statement not made by its analyst, the advertisement appears to be an intentional attempt to mislead.

Surely there can be no doubt within your campaign as to how Heritage truly views your tax plan. When one of your economic advisors, Jeffrey Liebman, made this same misrepresentation in a September 4, 2008 letter to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Hederman promptly sent a corrective and very public letter. It appeared in the September 16 issue of The Wall Street Journal under the title: “A Bad Plan That Is Less Bad Is Still Not A Very Good Plan.” In it, Mr. Hederman strenuously decried Mr. Liebman’s blatant misrepresentation and set the record straight.

The Heritage Foundation believes that your advertisements’ use of its name is not only not a fair use of its intellectual property, but is an intentional attempt to mislead and misinform voters. As a responsible candidate, you should insist that your campaign cease to run these false advertisements immediately.

Very truly yours,
Alan P. Dye

For the record, the Obama camp has refused to pull the add and will continue to run it until election day. So here is a commercial in which they've misrepresented a third party's opinion on Obama's plan and despite that groups pleas to stop misrepresenting them, the Obama campaign insists it will continue to post the lie. How ironic is it that? The very same liberals who have made false claims of stolen elections over the last 8 years are now trying to blatently steal this election. In Florida we have reports of mass voter fraud (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/elections/s
fl-flbvoters1029sboct29,0,4441897.story)

Then you have ACORN who has been repeatedly caught attempting to register ghosts. Meanwhile the Obama camp attempts to supress any section of media that dare question them (Florida Fox, Philly CBS 3, etc) while being covered by the LA Times who apparently hold a very damning tape of Obama yucking it up with a former spokesman for the PLO (all while making anti-Jew remarks).

FRAUDULENT DONATIONS!

Even bigger is the recent reports of Obama's private campaign funds. It was disclosed last night that Obama's campaign has disabled credit fraud prevention measures that typically verify address and name's with credit cards in order to accept shady donations. In otherwords, it appears that the Obama campaign intentionally disabled security checks on their web site that would prevent fraudulent donations. The site is no longer checking CVV numbers (that 3 digit number on the back of your card) or the AVS (address verification system)

One person tested the waters of Obama's readiness to accept dirty money and this is what they reported:

I have a credit card issued by a bank in Hong Kong.

I’ve just made 5 donations of $5 each using the card. I listed fake addresses in North Korea, Iran, Gaza, Venezuela and Kenya. The names and addresses were made up, each was different, I listed real Yahoo email addresses that forward to me.

Fake Name
Not A. Realperson
Finance Violation
Fraudulent Charge
Over Donation Limit

All 5 went through without a problem. I’m already being solicited for more money.

Not good. Want more?

Mark Steyn at National Review:

Okay, folks, that’s enough! [Mark Steyn]

Apparently, the AVS security precautions have not been re-enabled at the Obama website, and fake-name donations are still being accepted. But please, stop giving the guys more cash.

As to the argument that all these fake names are checked “offline”, the donation below from “Della Ware” has already been withdrawn from her account.

So, just to clarify, the AVS security checks most merchant processors use to screen out fraudulent transactions (and, incidentally, overseas customers) were intentionally disabled by the Obama campaign - and thus their web donation page enables fraudulent (and/or foreign) donations. The McCain campaign retains the AVS system used by other online retailers and thus rejects fake names and fake addresses. Advantage: Obama!

So here we go. I've spent several years working as a Credit Fraud Investigator dealing with ATO (account takeover), Fraud App, and Counterfeit operations. For a few years I was the only counterfeit investigator recognized by Visa International, often investigating foreign fraud rings as an advisor to the USSS as well as other government agency units. While I can assure you that the Obama campaign will end up picking up the bill on any fraudulent donations via credit fraud, I can also tell you that the campaign won't be charged with the bills for at least 60 days meaning they won't have to pay it back until post-election. Like the false statements about Heritage, Obama will use this fraud to his advantage and won't have to face the music until the damage is done. This should be of grave concern to anyone hoping for 'change'.

Privyet COMRADE! (means hello)

Did you say you're voting for a (Regime) change? You've excepted that lovely catch phrase change? Well that's just fantastic my comrade, your selection of a new ruler...I mean leader, will put us on the road to a socialist society and with your help we can undo everything our founding fathers gave their lives to prevent. A new day is born. A leader has descended from the heavens with a sharp tongue and new ideology that should finally stomp the stars right off the flag! (Cue Obama National Anthem-see my last blog).

Let's see, rid the country of freedom of speech-check. Right to bear arms-outta here. Capitalism-gone. Checks and Balances-No more. Treason-acceptable in certain Media outlets. Powers of States and People-No need, the Fed will takeover from here.

Now don't get me wrong, both parties have unwittingly placed us on this road but the newest, and now seemingly most likely, candidate could be the dagger to the heart of our founding fathers view of a government for the people BY THE PEOPLE.

So here we go...here's our top five signs you're about to start our country on the long path to total totalitarian rule. Oh, you think that's an overstatement? No way that could happen here? I'm sure they felt that way in the Pre-Soviet Russia. Pre GDR Germany, Romania, China, Khmer Rouge, DPRK, etc.

By definition, Totalitarian rule is "a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life

Here's an interesting quote:

Gary M. Grobman wrote:

"Totalitarian Regimes in contrast to a dictatorship establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader. Fascism is a form of totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state."

Well, golly....hasn't the number one reason for Obama's candidacy been that he's a charasmatic leader who can 'bring people together'? Hmmmmm. Now before you go off the deepend, I'm not saying that Obama hopes to someday become Adolf Hitler, I'm saying that sometimes good intentions, like a government that holds your hand, can turn into a government that the slips on the cuffs. It's all about setting us up for future manipulation.

"Both the Italian fascists and the Nazis consciously tried to imitate the left: youth organizations, mass mobilizations, rallies, parades, banners, symbols, slogans, uniforms"

Well that sounds mighty familiar too! Youth organizations and mass mobilizations, like ACORN? Rallies? Well we've seen plenty of those. Symbols? You mean like the one that replaced the American Flag on his jet?

SIGN NUMBER 1-The base. Obama represents the most extreme portion of his party. Supported by Syrian Nationals, A radical domestic terrorist, the US Communist Party and admitted socialists, Obama's core is a group that refuses to endorse the type of government our country was founded on. The vast majority of his supporters are those who have bought into his 'slogan' change we can believe in.

SIGN NUMBER 2- FREEDOM OF SPEECH, as long as you support him. The Fairness Doctrine is back in the limelight. How ironic is it that while a vast majority of our media outlets are far more leftist than the country itself, certain leaders feel the need to eliminate the minority opposition from the right?

We actually used to have a Fairness Doctrine but it was abolished when it became an easy tool for ruling parties to harass their critics with. It allows the government to fine and punish radio stations that don't allow for equal time. Since AM radio audiences are predominately conservative, any reinstatement of this measure would target Obama's critics (or more importantly, critics of the left). Lefty's such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore and John Kerry all claim to strongly support the idea. Conservative radio exhists because it's the necessary option to the mainstream media. Obama has proposed regulating these stations with a sub-portion of the FCC while also mandating an Affirmative Action style law to allow government to force stations to carry more minority based radio shows. Now there's government control of speech.

SIGN NUMBER 2- Redsitribution of Wealth...That which is earned, shall be taken away

Socialism's main belief is the elimination of wealth classes through redistribution via government intervention. Through a manipulative government it can eliminate the powerful thus creating a 'manageable' society. Most people who you consider 'rich' actually take home less money than they pay in taxes. Big companies like Exxon pay more in taxes per gallon than they profit. The idea is that they have enough, so they should give some to those who don't.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”- Michelle Obama

Let's not forget Obama's response to Joe the Plumber. And the moment it turned out that Joe may have got the best of Barack, the campaign did it's digging (reminiscent of the Palin/Alaska dumpster diving) and discovered that Mr. Plumber owed $1200 in back taxes! So there's your lesson, we'll take your wealth, and if you disagree, we'll raid your private life. GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

SIGN NUMBER 3- Government can do it better-

So far Obama has suggested that the Government needs to intervene in just about every sector of private business and personal life. His suggestions on education condone sexual education to K5 students that would teach them of gay relationships and masturbation. He has suggested the government should perhaps take over the oil industry, healthcare and the banking industry. So in essence, the government would be taking over all finance then. Since they're already in the business of loan sharking (11.3% interest on over 100 billion to AIG will force the company to liquidate while the government retains it's value)...why not?

SIGN NUMBER 4-Our crisis. It's been well documented that the main cause of our financial crisis is mortgage backed securities. Those were a result of mortgages so poor that the companies could only ensure them through flimsy securities. The cause of those mortgages were government pressure thorugh minority driven loans championed by those very same Robin Hoods. So what was the result? Spending tax money to buy those loans, which will be paid for through future tax raises. The companies such as AIG were eventually bought by the government furthering their control of your housing market to the tune of 70%. Those remaining companies may very well fall within the next 18 months giving total control to the government. The last economic meltdown brought us the new deal, this one could be the raw deal.

SIGN NUMBER 5- Acceptance. Perhaps you haven't noticied but there is a growing amount of news outlets that are not only accepting the idea of socialism now, but endorsing it. Some argue that it's actually more American than Capitalism (try not to snicker). Papers like the Seattle Times, New York Times and Los Angeles Times have all recently done articles stating just that. (something about naming your paper the 'Times' gives it a marxist referendum apparently). When you mention to Obama that his policies stink of socialism, notice he no longer denies it, he only states that it's the right thing to do, or in Biden's case it's the Patriotic thing to do. The more our society is desensitized to the idea of abandoning our countries capitalistic roots, the more we will go down a path we can no longer return from.

Most people now view gun owners as redneck hunters rather than Americans who have reserved the rights to protect themselves. While Obama now disputes that he actually favors a total ban on guns, do you actually believe that if such a bill were provided by Reid and Pelosi that he'd actually veto it?

Consider Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson

If you take this into account as well as my previous blogs on a NAU, it certainly would seem that we're embracing the very type of government liberty once seeked to crush.

Here are a few other comments that should be taken as early warnings to where we may be heading....

"a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance" -Winston Churchil

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.-Thomas Jefferson

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases" -Thomas Jefferson

As we speed along towards our eventual turn to socialism (hell, even Bush is doing his best Marx impersonation now). Perhaps it's time that we all stand and acknowledge our new messiah. He who shall not be questioned by anyone (or you'll be branded a racist). He who has been hoisted by the media. He who can stop the tides from rising and pull rice from his pockets to feed the hungry! HAIL TO OBAMA! (Please rise)

VP Debate Moderator Pens Pro-Obama Book WASHINGTON: Gwen Ifill, who is moderating Thursday's vice-presidential debate, is releasing a book on Barack Obama and other young black politicians who are "forging a bold new path to political power."

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Questions are being raised about PBS anchor Gwen Ifill's objectivity after news surfaced that she is releasing a new book promoting Barack Obama and other black politicians who have benefited from the civil rights struggle.

Ifill is moderating Thursday night's vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Her book, "The Breakthrough," is due to be released about the same time the next president takes the oath of office.

In her book, Ifill contends that the black political structure of the civil rights movement has cleared the way for post-racial politicians to ascend to new heights..

Now some are wondering whether Ifill can be fair and balanced, and whether she should be the moderator of Thursday's 9 p.m. ET debate.

FOX News political analyst Michelle Malkin argued in a post on National Review that Ifill is "so far in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running."

Now I would hope that Ifill can be professional enough to overlook her possible bias but could they not have found someone not so obvously affiliated? Even if she remains fair, which I think she will, does this not already set the wrong tone for the debate?

1999 NY Times Article Revealed True Cause of Current Fannie Mae Crises

This is probably an article [1] that the New York Times wishes it didn't have in its archives because it reveals the true culprits behind the current Fannie Mae meltdown. You will find "uncomfortable" truths in this September 30, 1999 article by Steven A. Holmes starting with the title, "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending," that you won't find in current editions of the New York Times (emphasis mine):

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Get that? Pressure by the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans by lowering its credit requirements.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

That would be the same Franklin Raines whom the Washington Post identified as a mortgage and housing adviser for the Obama campaign until that newspaper told us not to rely [1] on its own reporting. We return you now to the article that the New York Times wishes didn't exist:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Oops! And that is exactly what has happened nine years later. And who were the "killjoys" at the time warning against Fannie Mae easing the credit requirements? That answer is also provided in the NY Times article:

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

The original article can be found here.....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0D
E7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=2&sq=hol
mes%20fannie%20mae&st=cse&scp=5&sq=Fannie%20Mae%201999&
st=cse

I'm reposting this for the Cleveland group.....

Our economy is a house of cards. These are not times for those with weak stomaches. With several companies failing, billions of dollars being illegally funnelled into risky bailouts and a solid chance at overhelming debt, the idea that our government may drastically grow after January should frankly scare all of you to death, especially if you know how the economy truly works.

The Federal Reserve is sowing the seeds of doom for the US financial industry and it's citizens that invest in it. Consider the following:

We as a country are flat broke. Our citizens have spent and spent more irresponsibly than any generation before. A huge portion of our population is hopelessley in personal debt simply because we spend more than we make. Bankruptcy claims were so high it forced the government to rethink how those claims should be permitted. Worse still, our government is broke too. Presently the US debt stands at $9 trillion dollars and is growing faster than ever. AIG's bailout alone cost the federal government (meaning you the taxpayer) $85 billion dollars. Fannie & Freddie will cost around $200 billion. $50 billion from a Depression-era fund to insure the holdings of eligible money market mutual funds. The governments new announced 'just in case' sector will bail out the economy at an anounced $500 billion dollars!!! The reason that all these investment banks and banks are going broke is because Americans can`t pay back the money they`ve borrowed

Now let's translate what all these means. If you add all of these buyouts you come to around $1tillion in addition to the previously mentioned $9 trillion (and growing) debt we have. Where will this new money come from? You. Well sort of, it's actually worse than that. The government will effectively print this money. This means they'll flood the global market with $1trillion in newly created Washingtons (as in George). What that does is drastically devalue your dollar. Any time you have something rare, if the make a whole bunch more....well....it ain't so rare anymore now is it? Well, the US dollar isn't rare. True liquidity is.

It`s not accident that gold was up more than $100 an ounce in the last two days. The US dollar is no longer tied to gold like it used to be. Our dollar is now a flat based monetary system that is quickly becoming worthless. It's not just the US dollar since global banks have risen up to rule the world. There's no sense in trying to invest in another currency because they all are eventually tied to the dollar and it's assetts as well. Short term investors will fly to the stocks but they know we're just staving off the unstoppable.

What this translates to is that the fundamentals of our economy may be strong, but the foundation is weak. We are a deck of cards prepared to fall and we're setting the table to a point that it will take staggering periods of time to get out.

"Congress neglects their responsibility that Federal Reserve shouldn`t even exist on the Constitution. There is no explicit authorization for a Central Bank and the Treasury is just complicit in all that we do"- Ron Paul

I don't like Ron Paul that much but he's right. The Fed reserve has violated our constitution and is spending money without congressional approval. What's worse, they are creating a field where any future growth of the government will further devalue the dollar and create less domestic investing.

Central Banks are rising throughout the world with a stake in not just businesses but governments.

Paul goes on further...

"But when they (global economy's) are driven artificially by Central Banks colluding. So it`s not just our central bank, all the central banks talk to each other.

But we in the Congress can`t even audit them, we don`t even know this. If we can find out more information about the CIA, which is rather secretive than we can about the Federal Reserve. And just like the other day when they come up with these bailouts, do you think they even consulted Congress?"

Are you scared yet? You should be. The core belief of conservatives has been distorted by politicians who have become very much alike. Democrat or Republican, they all have huge stakes in failed businesses who have fallen due to an atmosphere those very politicians created. An atmosphere we as citizens created through debt, irresponsibility and ignorance.

You now have a candidate who promises to expand government to an uprecedented size. More social programs, more aid, more spending. Where will the money come from to create these programs? In addition he promises to raise taxes on incomes of $250k or more. This will create a heavier burden on private businesses and investors, the very one's who are keeping your economy alive at the moment. More taxes = less consumer spending aka less investing. Then taxing the very businesses that are struggling and falling.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. We can't afford for it to be. This has to be common sense. We must shrink our government and it's drastic expenses. We must begin to insist on American products (remember buy American?). We must create our own energy resources, present and future alternatives. With the present climate on Wall St, we cannot afford to grow our government to create more debt or soon your house of cards may collapse too.