jozielee wrote

"Dunno if I'd put much credence in a story reported by RussiaToday.com"

Why is that?

They are just as good as any other news source..

Jozielee, can you find where this story isn't true?

In the name of national security, the Obama administration is secretly drafting an international treaty( http://www.infomaticsonline.co.uk/vnunet/news/2238597/copyright-national-security ) that will give corporations and government sweeping powers to seize and search private computers and personal media.

When asked to disclose the treaty’s details, President Obama declared content of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement ) “classified in the interests of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.” http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html

Jared:

Dunno if I'd put much credence in a story reported by RussiaToday.com

Obama promised Transparency..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yPmtQDWZ1s

What he is doing in new laws are so transparent we have to go to new sources outside the country to find out..

FORREST POSTED: "Two weeks ago he was saying something else"

What was he saying before yesterday?

It seems that KTLA has been promoting the notion that its cool to get work in the Adult Entertainment Industry to keep money coming in these days. In Germany if you don't take prostitution jobs tat are available to you through their version of EDD you lose your unemployment or welfare ..... do we want that here?

Obama has change his opinion in the last few weeks.
from Drudge Report:WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama had some fun with at least one question at his online town hall, saying he doesn't think legalizing marijuana is a good strategy for turning around the economy.
Obama told the audience Thursday that one of the most popular questions was whether legalization of the illicit drug would help pull the nation out of the recession. The president jokingly said: "I don't know what this says about the online audience."

In a serious response, he said he didn't think that was a good economic policy.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. Two weeks ago he was saying something else

President obama is doing something that former President Bush had to do it before he went out, and this crisis has been less scary than is now and thousands of people did not lost their jobs. Now we have to save not only money, but every bit of everything (you know, soap, food, and only buy that is really a necessity for the family.

I admire the President for
his perseverance and tenacity in such a difficult time. He was handed such a difficult task and has surely lived up to his montra of change. I am disturbed however at those that are not giving the office of President of the United States the respect it has had in the past. People refer to the President as "Obama" or "Barack" rather than President Obama or Mr. President as required in the past.

Jared,
I'm sad to say that things will proly go the way of the UK with cameras everywhere and retinal and facial recognition programs running all day long and GPS on us all. With speed-pass plastic money that can locate us when our cell phones are off or out of charge. The democrats want control just as much as the republicans do or the soviets did.

OK All the talking has been done. How about something more than talk. Based on what I have seen thus far our President would make a good used car salesman. I believe he just likes to hear himself talk. I also have questioned some of his decisions like Gitmo. People need to realize that if these people or brought here they may get to remain.

Obama Administration: Constitution Does Not Protect Cell-Site Records

The Obama administration says the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply to cell-site information mobile phone carriers retain on their customers.

The position is being staked out in a little-noticed surveillance case pending before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The case has wide-ranging implications for Americans, as most citizens have or will carry a mobile phone in their lifespan.

At issue is whether the government can require federal judges to order mobile phone companies to release historical cell-tower information of a phone number without probable cause — the standard required for a search warrant. While judges have varied on the issue, the resulting evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution.

Full Article is here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/obama-administr.html

During the campaign i posted here on these blogs that if Obama won the election be prepared for Bush on Steriods when it comes to a lose civil liberties..

Also lets not for get the Obama sides with Bush on the Big telecoms getting amnesty for obeying the Fed's warrantless wiretapping..

Little by little his Administration will destroy the People's Constitutional protections..

wadada

Seems Obama has back tracked on his commitment of no signing statements to get his way after Congress has passed the law.. Sure seems like he is turning away from the Constitution which he says he taught for 10 year.. But he goes ahead and violates the Constitution with a signing statement on the omnibus spending bill.. Listen to what he said about signing statements while on the campaign trail.. he has made a 180 degree reversal of what he promised while trying to win our votes(he didn't get mine i saw past his campaign lies to win votes)..

For Immediate Release
March 13, 2009

Grassley holds President accountable for promises to make government transparent (We the People should also)

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley has asked President Barack Obama to account for the way his signing statement on the omnibus spending bill this week contradicts promises he made on during the presidential campaign and his pledges to support federal whistleblowers.

"The President's signing statement this week is alarming," Grassley said. "It makes you think that the new era of transparency is over before it began. President Obama shouldn't go back on his word from the campaign trail and do an end run around Congress." Here is a statement made by candidate Obama about presidential signing statements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc .

Earlier this month, Grassley wrote to Obama to urge him to hold a Rose Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers. It's an idea that Grassley has long suggested to Presidents as a way to send a message from the top of the bureaucracy on down that whistleblowers deserve rewards, rather than reprisals, for exposing mismanagement and waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars.

The text of Grassley's letter of protest regarding this week's signing statement is immediately below. Grassley's earlier letter is also below.

See link for letter..

http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=19801#):

In the video of Obama's campaign promise he was trying to say the G.W. Bush violated the US Constitution by making signing statements.. Then what does he do when he is in office, he makes signing statements.. (Obama is a liar to win votes)

Now that Obama has made a signing statement which he called Bush on, then he does it.

What is the saying about power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely..

Obama you lied when you said yes you would not use signing statements and also violated your Oath of Office the Constitution as did Bush..

Seems Obama has back tracked on his commitment of no signing statements to get his way after Congress has passed the law.. Sure seems like he is turning away from the Constitution which he says he taught for 10 year.. But he goes ahead and violates the Constitution with a signing statement on the omnibus spending bill.. Listen to what he said about signing statements while on the campaign trail.. he has made a 180 degree reversal of what he promised while trying to win our votes(he didn't get mine i saw past his campaign lies to win votes)..

For Immediate Release
March 13, 2009

Grassley holds President accountable for promises to make government transparent (We the People should also)

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley has asked President Barack Obama to account for the way his signing statement on the omnibus spending bill this week contradicts promises he made on during the presidential campaign and his pledges to support federal whistleblowers.

"The President's signing statement this week is alarming," Grassley said. "It makes you think that the new era of transparency is over before it began. President Obama shouldn't go back on his word from the campaign trail and do an end run around Congress." Here is a statement made by candidate Obama about presidential signing statements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc .

Earlier this month, Grassley wrote to Obama to urge him to hold a Rose Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers. It's an idea that Grassley has long suggested to Presidents as a way to send a message from the top of the bureaucracy on down that whistleblowers deserve rewards, rather than reprisals, for exposing mismanagement and waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars.

The text of Grassley's letter of protest regarding this week's signing statement is immediately below. Grassley's earlier letter is also below.

See link for letter..

http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=19801#):

In the video of Obama's campaign promise he was trying to say the G.W. Bush violated the US Constitution by making signing statements.. Then what does he do when he is in office, he makes signing statements.. (Obama is a liar to win votes)

Now that Obama has made a signing statement which he called Bush on, then he does it.

What is the saying about power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely..

Obama you lied when you said yes you would not use signing statements and also violated your Oath of Office the Constitution as did Bush..

One video to watch that will teach you all you need to know about Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

I have made numerous attempts to contact our political leaders with programs that Americans can involve themselves it providing NOW results. I appreciate President Obama's efforts but the results are down the road. Way down the road. It's a shame that Politicians believe they are the only one with answers. They go to sleep at night oblivious of the plight of the American People. Some evicted, some without utilities, some laid off, some w/o food. The following is what I have sent with no response whatsoever.

Blessings to you. The following message has been sent to various political leaders and media. It is time for Americans to Speak Up and Speak Out! I look forward to hearing or meeting with you ASAP.

Please view: utube prophetess gwen to the nation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWP8kiXBEk8

While the government prepares economic recovery plans - It is time for Americans to step up to the plate in unity with our own Immediate Recovery Plans, Peoples Stimulous Packages that produce NOW results and NOW Bail Outs for the Amerian People suffering due to the greed of corporate, business and some politicl leaders.
People of this great country are falling apart and falling down NOW. Plans that provide relief at the end of the year are too much, too little, too late!
We don't have time for meetings comprised of political leaders bickering. We dont have time for the red tape process. We don't have time to figure out government limitation or whose responsible for what. We don't have time. The clock is ticking.
I have three very simple programs that will take some weight off the government and get the people involved in the economic recovery process of the United States of America. 1) $'s Across America; 2) Church Adoption Proram; 3) Business Part Timers Program.
Please view the utube message and contact me via email ASAP to arange a meeting.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Blessings,
Prophetess Gwendolyn Wilson

20/20 - Bailouts and Bull

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tda0-cDyD0U

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwdVInR1Gw

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0vpzxWU9io

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K93hZbWB_I

Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmpDbM1YDWg

Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYE4gO0b3K4

jozielee

One other point..

The FED has increased the money supply over 271% which money went to banks outside of the bailout package..

This is where the FED won't tell who got this money.. The FED is not transparent at all..

I will side track here...

Was Obama lying when he said that we would have 5 days to read all bills and they would be posted on the Internet before Obama sign any bill into law?

Sure seems like it, Even Congress received the bill(over a thousand pages) just hours before voting... (Just like the Patriot Act)..

That isn't change that is Washington as usual!!!!

jozielee

The article points out that why they are returning the money is they want to continue their same business practice..

They don't want to be chained to what the federal government wants..

I noticed that one of the entities you listed was Goldman Sachs..

They are the one's who helped cause the derivative market along with Greenspan of the FED which caused the problems we are in....

http://www.google.com/search?q=derivatives+%2B+Goldman+Sachs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Where did Polson come from before he became Sec of Treasury?

Yep he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs...

Of course Goldman Sachs backed out, they are the one's who are helping Timothy F. Geithner in coming up with plans on how to fix the economy.... can you say conflict of interest...

wadada

JARED WROTE: "List them and we will follow how much they return."

List of some banks returning money to government include . . .

* TCF Financial Corporation of Wayzata, Minn.
* Iberia Bank of Lafayette, La.
* Goldman Sachs
* Wells Fargo
* Signature Bank of New York

"Some Banks, Feeling Chained, Want to Return Bailout Money "
NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/business/economy/11bailout.html?_r=1&hp

jozielee

"And some of them are giving the money back"

Are you sure?

List them and we will follow how much they return..

JARED WROTE: "Partial list of companies receiving bailout funds"

And some of them are giving the money back. What do you think of that?

Partial list of companies receiving bailout funds

2008-2009 financial bailout relationships:

American Express Company - receiving federal investment
American International Group, Inc. - receiving federal investment
Bank of America Corp.- receiving federal investment
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation - receiving federal investment & bailout manager
Capital One Financial Corporation - receiving federal investment
Chrysler LLC - receiving federal investment
CIT Group Inc.- receiving federal investment
Citigroup Inc.- receiving federal investment
City National Corporation - receiving federal investment
Comerica Incorporated - receiving federal investment
Fifth Third Bancorp - receiving federal investment
First Horizon National Corporation - receiving federal investment
Fulton Financial Corporation - receiving federal investment
General Motors Corporation - receiving federal investment
GMAC LLC - receiving federal invesment
Goldman Sachs Group Inc.- receiving federal investment
Huntington Bancshares - receiving federal investment
JPMorgan Chase & Co.- receiving federal investment
KeyCorp - receiving federal investment
Marshall & Ilsley Corp.- receiving federal investment
Morgan Stanley - receiving federal investment
M&T Bank - receiving federal investment
Northern Trust Corporation - receiving federal investment
Office of Financial Stability - managing
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. - receiving federal investment
Popular, Inc.- receiving federal investment
Regions Financial Corporation - receiving federal investment
South Financial Group - receiving federal investment
State Street Corporation - receiving federal investment
SunTrust Banks, Inc.- receiving federal investment
Synovus Financial Corp.- receiving federal investment
TCF Financial Corporation - receiving federal investment
U.S.Bancorp - receiving federal investment
Webster Financial Corporation - receiving federal investment
Wells Fargo & Co.- receiving federal investment
Wilmington Trust Corporation - receiving federal investment
Zions Bancorporation - receiving federal investment

File this under Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss on Human rights...

Obama Justice Dept. defends Rumsfeld in torture case

-By Rachel Oswald

March 13, 2009
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_Justice_Dep._defends_Rumsfeld_in_0313.html

Exclusive: Attorney had hoped Obama admin would take 'stronger moral stance' on torture

In a brief filed Thursday evening, Obama Justice Department lawyers extended many of the same arguments made by Bush attorneys – that top government officials have qualified immunity from prosecution and that Guantanamo detainees do not have constitutional rights to due process.

The Department of Justice has asserted that a Supreme Court ruling reaffirming the rights of Guantanamo detainees to habeas corpus does not apply to plaintiffs in a case against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld because the plaintiffs were released from prison four years prior to the Supreme Court's decision.

“It is fair to say that the current brief that is filed by the new administration supports a lot of the arguments that were made by the previous administration,” said Kate Toomey, an attorney with Baach Robinson & Lewis who is representing the former detainees in an interview with RAW STORY. “They continue to assert that torture was in the scope of employment and could be reasonably expected. They continue to assert that these [top officials] be entitled to immunity. They also continue to argue that detainees at Guantanamo don’t have constitutional rights.
”

The brief was filed as part of the Rasul v. Rumsfeld lawsuit of four former detainees, who include the ‘Tipton Three,’ and are seeking damages for their detention and reported torture at Guantanamo Bay against Rumsfeld, the Chairmen of the Joint Chief of Staffs and other top military officials. The suit charges them with violations of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, the Alien Tort Statute, the Geneva Conventions and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The plaintiffs are individually each seeking $10 million in damages.

The men were held for more than two years at Guantanamo where they were reportedly subjected to regular beatings, death threats, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures, forced nakedness, interrogations at gun point and religious and racial harassment. They were never charged with any crime. The men were released in March 2004 and returned to their home country of Britain.

The plaintiffs are also being represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has a full background of the case, including all court documents here.

Thursday’s brief is the latest action in the case after the Supreme Court in December granted the former detainees’ petition to review their case in light of the court's June 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees do have a right to habeas corpus. All charges in the case had previously been dismissed by the D.C. Circuit of the Court of Appeals except for the charge of violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Boumediene - decided four years after plaintiffs’ detention ended - cannot support a finding that the law was so clearly established that a reasonable official would have known that his or her conduct violated the Constitution or the RFRA statute,” the brief states.

The department’s request that the Boumediene ruling not be considered in the Rumsfeld case puts the Justice Department directly at odds with statements made by President Obama during the 2008 campaign.

"Habeus corpus ... is the foundation of Anglo-American law, which says very simply, if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ..Why was I grabbed?' and say, ..Maybe, you've got the wrong person,’” said Obama at a early Sept. 2008 campaign rally where he seemed to refer to just such exactly the case posed by the the Tipton Three.

Shortly after 9/11, the former detainees were in Afghanistan reportedly doing humanitarian work when they were grabbed by a local warlord and handed over to American forces allegedly in exchange for the bounty the military was offering for suspected terrorists.

"The reason we have that safeguard is we don't always have the right person,” said Obama at the campaign rally. “We don't always catch the right person. We may think this is Muhammad the terrorist. It might be Muhammad the cab driver.
”

Given statements like these made by President Obama, Toomey said she and others involved with the case had been hopeful that the new Justice Department would have taken a stronger stance on some of the most criticized policies of the Bush administration.

“We had hoped that they would file something that separated them from the former administration and obviously we had hoped that they would be taking a stronger moral stance about what should be anticipated from senior officers including the Secretary of Defense on legally standing prohibitions,” Toomey said, adding “There’s no question that the U.S. law forbids people from ordering torture. And so it’s unfortunate that they have sort of squandered an opportunity to have made that point.
”

The Obama Justice Department extends the argument made by the Bush Justice Department that top government officials have qualified immunity when it writes:

“Because government officials are not ‘expected to predict the future course of constitutional law,’… decisions that post-date the conduct in question cannot be used to deny qualified immunity.
”

Language used in the brief of the individual defendants in the case, including Rumsfeld, having a “clear entitlement to qualified immunity” casts doubt on the hopes of civil and human rights activists that the Justice Department will take up calls to launch criminal prosecutions into the architects and policy designers of some of the most criticized Bush policies such as waterboarding, extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping.

Further light on the department’s position on individual prosecutions of members of the Bush Administration can be gleaned from statements like this in the brief:

“The prospect of individual liability increases the likelihood that officials will make decisions based upon fear of litigation rather than appropriate military policy.
”

The brief also makes the claim that it is “unnecessary” for the Supreme Court to address the question of whether the former detainees have “constitutional due process rights.
”

“Plainly, the constitutional rights asserted by plaintiffs, which are still not established today… were not clearly established at the time of the alleged acts in question here. Accordingly, this Court was correct in concluding that a reasonable officer would not have concluded that plaintiffs here possessed Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights while they were detained at Guantanamo.
”

Thanks for the article explaining the video, Jared.

jozielee

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/came-brought-ken-2328216-others-john

Interesting video, Jared.

Taxes was the unifying theme but I didn't get the message of this group. Why they were marching? Were they against state taxes, angry with the governor for his new tax plan, angry with the president for misappropriating federal taxes? Que pasa?

Loved Cap Jack Sparrow ending.

California Tax Revolt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XChR0j2deXY

-mike:

About the date of your articles - you said taxes are reported quarterly. I was merely pointing out that your information was outdated.

Since Warren Buffett is an Obama adviser I'm sure he knows he'll be paying higher taxes.

No matter what table is used to calculate income tax, based on today's tax laws, the top 1% pays proportionally less income tax than the bottom 98%. It's a fact.

That will soon change. And no matter how diligently we debate, if you make over $250K annually you'll pay more taxes.

If you make less, the point is moot.

Jozielee -

Yes the Kiplinger report was from 2008 and??? Two of your reports were also from 2008 and one was from 2007. They are still relevant for our purposes...

With regards to Buffett and your comment:

"Do the rich pay their fair share in taxes? . . . billionaire investor Warren Buffett said that rich guys like him were not paying enough.

Well, no one is stopping him from voluntarily sending in more to make up this discrepancy. He could at any time make up this difference. But, he is rich for a reason...

And your other post:

"Buffett asserted that his taxes last year equaled only 17.7 percent of his taxable income, compared with about 30 percent for his receptionist . . . "

I guarantee his 17.7% is more than her 30% of her income in actual dollars. The key words are "of her income." But taxes are not paid as percentage of income, they are paid according to how much income is earned and then a corresponding percentage is then paid. There are different tax rates for different income levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

So, i'm sure the receptionist is in a lower level tax bracket and Buffett is in the highest tax-bracket which by the way Obama wants to raise that top level. So, that should make many people happy...

Again, we are playing with numbers because taxes paid are based on income earned and not percentages of incomes compared to other people.

So, of course his taxes paid are a lower "percentage" compared to his income than his receptionist. He makes more and the divisible tax rate is less than her income ratio paid-to-income.

Would you rather see a flat-tax rate so that everyone pays the same rate? I doubt that. Steve Forbes proposed that a few years back and well...

-m

-mike:

The Kiplinger report you posted was dated July 2008, the 3rd quarter of the year.

In rebuttal . . .

HERALD TRIBUNE: "Do the American rich pay their fair share in taxes?"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/tax.php

"Do the rich pay their fair share in taxes? . . . billionaire investor Warren Buffett said that rich guys like him were not paying enough.

"Buffett asserted that his taxes last year equaled only 17.7 percent of his taxable income, compared with about 30 percent for his receptionist . . . "

* * * *

WSJ: “Richest Americans See Their Income Share Grow”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677287690575589.html

“In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

“Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. . . “

* * * *

REUTERS: "Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income tax"
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812

"The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

"42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years . . . "

Jozielee -

Yes, of course the numbers are for 2008. Numbers for 2009 do not exist as of yet, since most numbers are reported quarterly. But, that aside my point is still remains that top wage "earners" still pay the MAJORITY of taxes with regards to percentage of all tax payers. In other words the top 1 or 2 percent of wage earners pay the MAJORITY of taxes.

Here's paragraph 4 from the same Kiplinger report:

"But get this: When it comes to taxes paid, an even wider discrepancy shows itself -- in reverse. That top 1% of earners pay 39.89% of all the federal individual income taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay just 2.99% of those taxes."

So, I stand behind my original comment that:

"Top income earners pay more than their fair share in taxes" in both true dollars and the percent of total dollars collected.

Also, remember I stated awhile back that numbers and statistics will be used and manipulated by politicians and others to illustrate the point they are trying to convey.

For example, this same report starts off with the headline paragraph:

"You may not feel rich earning $35,000 a year, but you’re in the top half of taxpayers. $65,000? You’re in the top 25 percent."

I don't know anyone who falls in this income bracket that would consider themselves middle class, rather they would just be scraping by with monthly expenses especially here in Southern California.

So, numbers are all relative to how they are being used...

-m

-mike WROTE: "Top income earners pay more than their fair share in taxes"

First of all the information is from 2008, but what skews the data is the number of categories. The author is only comparing the top 1% with the lowest 50%. The president says the top 2% pay less than the bottom 98%. Using that information let me recalculate the final info.

Using the Kiplinger data:

Top 1% pays 22%
Bottom 99% pays 250%

Notice the largest percentage comes from those making $31,000 - $108,000 annually. Better known as the middle class.

I'm still waiting to see if Obama will repeal the Military Commissions Act, The Bush changes to the Insurrection Act, restore Habeas Corpus, and restore the changes made by Bush to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Each of these things that were done by Bush gave the executive branch of government more powers which they don't have under the US Constitution..

And until he changes these items he will show that he is the same as Bush in the policy of a dictatorship of the federal government over the people...

Jozielee - more tax stats for you:

http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2007/11/taxrank.html

Top income earners pay more than their fair share in taxes and this is even before a certain someone will attempt to spread the wealth.

As for my opinion on stem cell research?

head over to his next page. See you there...

-m

JARED QUOTED: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

And millions of germs are passed person-to-person on the back of a dollar bill, but it doesn't stop me from exchanging cash at the fast-food window then digging into the bag to eat my fries before they get cold.

QUOTED: "You think that the government has the authority to redistribute the property of one to give it to another."

No. Frank Torres of Carson comes to mind. Remember the contractor who wrote HELP ME on the roof of his house to stop foreclosure? He would only talk with the mayor. The mayor responded, but could not reverse foreclosure rules. Torres was prevented from buying back his house, even though he had enough money to pay the overdue mortgage payments and proof that he had a job.
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_11671247

DAN WROTE: "Think of the money that could be saved in healthcare, pharmaceuticals and the endless possibilities from stem cell research!"

I'll drink to that, Dan.

BTW, today I saw a statistic that speaks to our discussion.

IN 2006
1% of Americans made 22% of the total income
2% of Americans made 50% of the total income

That means 98% of Americans shared 26% of the remaining income

No wonder 52% voted for change.

jozielee wrote

"Essentially I said I'd rather see people in banking and the auto industry keep their jobs."

I ask, at what cost?

At the cost of of those who are our youth or not born yet being debt slaves to a private banking cartel who controls our government?

You think that it is moral to take from those who don't have a voice to vote for their public servants?

You think that it is moral to take from someone and give it to someone else?

You think that the government has the authority to redistribute the property of one to give it to another..

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)

"Oh, yeah, I bet we'll all "agree" on stem cell research, too. LOL See you over there."

Oh God Jozielee. Thank you for that laugh! I needed that.
Of course I'm ecstatic about Obama's stem cell research decision!
If this means that we could possibly come up with a cure for HIV and AIDS, I will gladly look towards the day that I don't have to run a Food Bank that hands out food to families with Children where the parents or their children have HIV! I pray for that day! This could just become a reality too. Think of the money that could be saved in healthcare, pharmaceuticals and the endless possibilities from stem cell research!

-mike WROTE: "Frank has a new topic... if not this one maybe we can discuss another"

Hey, we didn't agree on Bush#43, what made you think we'd agree on Obama#44? It's just politics. Disagree is what we do best.

Oh, yeah, I bet we'll all "agree" on stem cell research, too. LOL See you over there.

Jared:

I wrote a complete response to your comment about not needing time to gel. Somehow it was lost in transit and I don't have a copy.

Essentially I said I'd rather see people in banking and the auto industry keep their jobs. I don't want them tossed out sitting on the curb straddling a box of their personal affects when they could be making money. Working people put money back into the economy. Look at Sam Rubin whooping it up in New York. You know he's spending a pretty penny in the Big Apple.

If I had a better plan than Sheila Bair, Larry Summers, Tim Geitner or Warren Buffett I'd beat down the Whitehouse doors. But I don't, so I hope our leaders know what they're doing, or at least I hope they find out soon.

Today John McCain said the banks should be allowed to fail. He was wrong about Sara Palin, and he was wrong about suspending his campaign. I'm not likely to listen to him now.

On the other hand, Barack Obama made a lot of smart decisions to rise from community leader to the presidency in a few short years. I'm more likely to believe in the new guy.

Jozie - a three day weekend starting last Friday at the park?? Must be nice. Good for you.

Jozielee / PLM - I've included you as well because I also appreciate that from time to time you ask for my perspective and we've come to understand that we just see things different politically. That's fine.

But, why are we worried that Obama is getting picked on after only (insert any time frame here) time in office?

The answer? It's politics.

There will always be oppostiion to whoever is making policy. Some opposition is louder than others. But, please don't tell me that W. didn't receive criticism from the get go. If anything he was attacked endlessly beginning from the disputed election up until his final hours. Most of his criticism is deserved, but its time to move on. However, when it comes to Obama, you both seem to worry that he's being attacked unfairly. No, I don't see it that way, rather his decisions will please some people and draw criticism from others. Its politics.

My point is politicians will always be under attack, criticized, blamed, or judged on decisions they make. Time and polls will decide how the majority of Americans feel ultimately with Obama or any other president. I've only tried to point out that no politician should be given a pass. Sure, there are things I like about Obama, (his apparent consensus building before making decisions) and things I do not like, such as making the Country more dependant on government to solve their problems, especially when the government caused much of the problems.

I just think Obama is being given his fair chance, well at least by me he is. So, hopefully we can all move onto other topics and maybe discuss outcomes of his policies and the effects of his decisions. I see Frank has a new topic... if not this one maybe we can discuss another...

Either way, thanks for the continued dialogue...

-m

JARED WROTE: "As i said I wonder who Obama is really working for.."

Henry was a great orator. "Historians today observe that Henry was known to have used fear of Indian and slave revolts in promoting military action against the British." (Wikipedia)

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.
-- Patrick Henry

jozielee

Sometimes you don't need time to gel, you know it isn't going to work..

The economy..

We got into the mess by over spending and over borrowing and both parties in Congress are to blame for deficit spending..

SO what does the new Obama admin come up with to fix the problem, spend more and borrow more the same thing that caused the mess we're in now..

The only one's who are really making out is the privately owned FED they are glad to loan the country and the banks more money..

As i said I wonder who Obama is really working for..

JARED POSTED: "Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Surely you realize I'm not saying the president should never be criticized. But to say the president should fail or that he's turning America into a socialist state or that he's squashing small business without giving his policies at least 45 days to gel is ridiculous. That's like giving you a frozen pizza and expecting a microwave oven to heat it in 5 seconds. It ain't gonna happen.

Obama Appointee Wants California Given to Mexico?

Written by CA Political News on March 06, 2009, 10:26 AM
Who's Thomas Saenz?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, 3/5/09

Civil Rights: The open-borders crowd eagerly awaits the nomination of one of its own to a key Justice Department post, a man who has dedicated his life to promoting illegal immigrant "rights.
"

President Obama is expected to appoint Thomas Saenz as the nation's top civil-rights enforcer. It's a key appointment because Obama has promised to "reinvigorate" the division Saenz will lead. And the Civil Rights Division carries a wide-ranging portfolio, covering everything from hate crimes and police misconduct to voting rights and redistricting laws.

All this power will likely be turned over to Saenz, who was a top lawyer for a radical Hispanic group that wants to cede California to Mexico. Saenz is credited with killing Proposition 187 in California against the wishes of 60% of voters. That law would have denied welfare to illegals.

At the time, Saenz was vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, whose co-founder has exulted: "California is going to be a Mexican state, we are going to control all the institutions. If people don't like it, they should leave.
"

Saenz has also sued California cities to establish "hiring halls" for illegal day laborers so that they can have a place to urinate. In fact, protecting day laborers against "anti-immigrant" sweeps is one of his top priorities.

He has agitated for "a federal court decision which would settle (the issue) for all time," and now he may have his way. Loitering illegals may soon have total freedom to harass store customers and drink and relieve themselves in public.

He would also crack down on local law enforcement officials who help ICE deport illegals. When the LAPD tried such collaboration, Saenz demanded "punishing all wrongdoers.
"

In fact, the way Saenz sees it, no illegal alien should be rounded up.

"Currently in California, thousands and thousands of people live in fear because of widespread Border Patrol sweeps," he said. "It is critical that comprehensive immigration reform includes nondiscrimination against people on the basis of immigration status.
"

By reform he means amnesty. "At a certain point," he said, referring to the 20 million illegals in the U.S., "people have earned a right to stay here with their families.
"

In addition to amnesty, he wants to give them full access to government benefits, including Social Security. "We treat undocumented immigrants as a separate class from which we take and do not give," he complained.

Obama ran on a promise of uniting all Americans, not those who broke into the country illegally, and his selection of Saenz couldn't be more divisive.

And now, with Mexican drug-gang violence spilling across our borders, this certainly is no time to put an open-borders extremist in charge of policing police.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

Jozielee I couldn't agree with you more. It just irks me when people start criticizing this President who has been in office less than 2 months! That's LESS THAN 2 MONTHS PEOPLE! My God, you gave Bush 8 LONG YEARS to get this country in the mess it's in and you want Obama to fix it in less than 2 months!
WAKE UP!
God Bless you Jozielee!

NO Mama Palin & PLM:

According to Sunday morning pundits, Ronald Reagan, who found himself in a similar economy in 1982, enjoyed 11 MONTHS of his presidency before receiving criticism. Compare that to 6 WEEKS Barack Obama has been in office. Must be technology. We want instant communication and immediate action.

Thank goodness the majority of Americans (those who are giving Obama a 72% approval rating this week) are more patient. They see him living up to his campaign promises and they're continuing to have faith in his ability to turn our country around.

Bravo, Mr. President!

Mike,
It will continue to always be BUSH's fault that we are in the financial predicament we are in.
Why do you refuse to see that?
Bush started this war that has cost billions and billions of dollars. It was the Bush Administration (Cheney especially) who implemented the "no bid" contractors that bilked Americans for Billions of dollars and did NOTHING!
So it will continue to be Bush's fault until some miracle somehow finds its way to clearing up this financial mess!
You can't expect Obama to take blame for something that took over 6 long years of an unnecessary war! Come on, can't you see that...at least that??? We know you don't like this choice of President and you will find everything wrong that you possibly can. I almost think your mantra is as negative and misplaced as Rush Limbaugh's. You only want for this President to fail, and you sit idly by waiting for just that.
At least MAN UP and admit, that we are in this mess because of BUSH! We may even be in such a quagmire that not even Jesus Christ himself if he came back to this planet could turn around the mess Bush and his cronies have made.