New World Order!!! Check out this video!!!

This is Damon Vickers of Nine Points Capital on CNBC. I thought a New World Order was only something that only crazy folks blogged about from the basement of their moms house, and not something you see on Network News... I'd also like to point out this this Damon Vickers guy runs a hedge fund that has been pretty spot on with it's prediction on currencies, oil and gold. So he's not a nut job without a clue he has a 25 year track record. What even more scary is that the host of the show didn't balk at his prediction.

Glenn Beck had him on the T.V. show to allow his to clarify himself.

Who's country is this?

Cheers,

Mike

Why Sarah Palin can't catch a break

Sarah Palin was treated like a sad little excuse during the 2008 presidential campaign and very few people came to her defense. Now, she is still being ruthlessly attacked by the media and her political opposition. If you look at facts given by her opposition it simply does not make sense. Sarah Palin had more political executive experience than Barack Obama. She's not stupid despite what folks at ABC or MSNBC might say and she has a real track record fighting for what she believes in. That last point is important to note because Barack Obama also had a verifiable track record fighting for what he believes. The difference of course if that Obama campaigned on a moderate platform that was not in line with his track record. His campaign was a smoke screen to steer folks to his side, now it's those folks who are asking themselves why they didn't listen and look more closely at his record. He didn't hide anything, he came right out and told the world where he stands in his speeches, his voting record and his books.

Some of Barracks own words;

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

"To avoid being mistaken for a white sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."

Now this post is supposed to be about Sarah so, I'll get back on track.

Sarah Palin stands for something, she stands for everything the liberals detest. She is not trendy, she's not cool for school and she believes in God and Guns. Can you imagine, a white women who hunts is against abortion and isn't afraid to get her hands dirty. A successful women who made it into a Governorship on her own. She's more like real Americans who work for a living. The establishment cannot allow her to gain traction or they risk losing the popularity contest as more and more Americans are going to watch the real Sarah Palin and realize that she is not the woman from Saturday Night Live.

What this amounts to is many of Palins opponents using their own opinions to steer the facts instead of allowing the facts to steer their own opinion. This is fine when openly expressing an opinion but when this is done in connection to reporting, well you get what amounts to a Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow telecast.

Cheers,

Mike

Net Nuetrality

What is Net Neutrality? This is an explanation found on Googles Users Guide.

"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."

I should also point out that Google is in support of Net Neutrality.

It sounds pretty good right, so why are so many people against it? Well I naturally get curious when I see and hear the presidential administration as well as communist thugs like Van Jones get behind something, so I did a little further research. Net Neutrality is not a new idea, it's been around for over a decade and in fact has been in practice throughout most of the Internet. The main reason it's supported so heavily is because the big technology firms do not want to see ISP's limit service in a tiered system which would allow them to control the flow of the Internet. This all sounds like a great idea, let's keep the Internet free and open, right?

Again, I still need to know why Van Jones is such a strong supporter of it. He's one of these take from the rich and the white and give it to the poor and the brown. He's supposed to be against Big Business but now all of sudden he's on the same side as Microsoft and Google. Your enemies do not become your allies over night, and if they do you need to find out why. Typically it's because they have something to gain, and if your once sworn enemy has something to gain on your side of an argument you need to re-evaluate that argument to make sure you have all the facts.

The truth is Obama and his people are not so concerned about keeping the Internet equal as there are about making it MORE EQUAL for some and LESS EQUAL for others. Do we really want the Government sticking their nose into this? They have already attacked Fox News, now they want to regulate the Internet, I'm sure Fox News Content will be treated fairly, right?

There are many questions in regards to Net Neutrality that need a closer look and the folks in power right now, are not the folks I want looking at it.

Cheers,

Mike

What does the 2nd Amendment Mean?

I am surprised that when people argue over whether or not the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to bear arms no one mentions the true meaning behind the words used in the 2nd Amendment. If you actually read the amendment it does not give us the right to bear arms. This is not to say it does not give us the right to bear arms either.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What it does do is assume that we already have that right. And it forbids the Government from infringing upon it. The founding fathers were more ingenious than I realized. They did not feel it necessary to give us the right to bear arms, they assumed we already had the right as free people. They wrote the 2nd Amendment to ensure no future American government under the Constitution would ever be able to take that right away from us.

This chain of thought is consistent with writing from the founders back in the day. All to often people get wrapped up in whether or not the 2nd amendment grants us a right and whether or not it only applies to a militia, when in fact the constitution grants the government the power to raise an army. Why would they use the word Army and Militia separately if they intended for it to be one in the same?

I think it's clear, U.S. citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and the Constitution protects the right, it does not grant the right.

Cheers,

Mike

Health Care Bill passes in the House Without Abortion

"Washington (CNN) -- The House of Representatives on Saturday night passed a sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215. ... Earlier, the House passed an amendment to pending health care legislation that prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create "

It seems they were not able to get it done without the stupak clause which added verbiage that would exclude abortion services with tax payer dollars. It seems there were just enough Pro-life Democrats who took the stand on this issue and would not vote for it otherwise. (Maybe they were afraid of being voted out?) This is of course only a slight improvement but it's still nowhere near the Bill that I believe most Americans would prefer to see become law.

It's already been said that the Stupak Clause will be removed so who knows how solid it will be in the long run. Even with an exclusion for abortion the bill still does not address Insurance companies ability to sell insurance across the country nor does it address portability. No tort reform, in fact there is anti-tort reform in the restrictions for states who have caps on damages one can receive in health related lawsuits.


Another annoyance is that many of the congressman still had not received copies of the bill by Friday night, so they were being printed. The printed copies were being taken as quick as they could get them out. The printed copies did not include the revisions, so Congressmen who were taking these copies were not even receiving the bill they would eventually vote on.


This leads to the question I think begs to be asked.


WHY DO OUR CONGRESSMEN NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN AND READ A DIGITAL FILE???


Being limited to paper copies seems archaic to me. Do we really have people representing us that need to have a paper copy. This may seem like a petty thing to be upset about, considering the larger implications of the Health Care Bill, but think about it, it's just one more piece of evidence that goes to show our leaders shear inability to relate to the American people.


Cheers,


Mike

Obama not going to Berlin

I guess it's too much to ask that the leader of the free world to break away from his busy agenda to celebrate the fall of communism in Germany. Could it be that maybe he doesn't feel there is anything to celebrate? Why can he stop on a dime and fly to Copenhagen but he doesn't feel the need to attend a celebration of democracy? A democracy that would not be if not for the efforts of the United States.

Some people have raised questions about Obama's decision not to travel and suggested whether it's a nod to Russia or just another attempt to play down the perception of U.S. dominance as a superpower. If that's the case I agree with Newt Gingrich, it's tragedy! The U.S. is sending a delegation led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. President Obama acknowledged the anniversary last week when he met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

This is the same man who traveled to Germany to campaign. He went there to get applause but he won't go to help them celebrate freedom and liberty. It's a shame it's a dam shame. I'll bet any day now he supports Chavez in warning Columbia that a conflict would their own fault.

Cheers,

Mike

Why are so many people so confused

I've been spending allot of time on message boards lately and I've found that many people are really confused about quite allot actually. At first I thought it was just people who maybe didn't spend as much time as I watching and reading. But I've come to understand that many people are really simply set in their belief on one topic or another with no backup or support. I come to a head with folks who simply believe a thing and can't even explain why they believe it and question facts of mine without understanding basic principles behind them.

I know this all sounds very vague and I'm only writing that way because I don't want to point any fingers at specific individuals. But all this has got me thinking and the only explanation I can come up with is that there is no much dis-information out there. At first i feared that maybe some of the Liberals were right but then I noticed that most of the folks who were dead wrong, were beating the Liberal Drum. I don't think this is mistake. I really believe that the Left is capitalizing on the fact that so many folks will simply take a side that is put in front of them and run with it.

Scary I know but how else can you explain so many people who actually believe in Saved Jobs? I've been hammered about how Schools and Police have been saved by the stimulus. Try as I might I cannot get them to understand that if stimulus is the ONLY thing saving the job, it's not really saved. Once the Stimulus runs out the job is still GONE. The system needs to be able to support the job long term on it's own for the job to be saved. If I hire someone knowing that I can't afford to pay them past a certain point, that is a temp job, not a career position. Throwing money at an industry or sector to avoid someone from being fired is not a saved job.

Argue all you want about whether or not people are still employed and whether or not you can even calculate it, it's not a saved job unless YOU KNOW there is no end in sight for that job. If you need to count on a recovery or an increase in revenue or an expansion in some government program in order for the job to remain than it's NOT A SAVED JOB! Sure some folks are still working thanks to stimulus spending, that is not an indication that anything is improved.

If I'm broke, unemployed and close to losing my house with a Housekeeper and a Gardner on my payroll. Then someone hands me $100,000.00. I choose to keep my Housekeeper and Gardner instead of paying for my mortgage and bills. Are those jobs really saved? I'm going to lose the house, they are going to lose their jobs it's just a matter of time, unless I find a new job or win the lottery. So their job security is connected my job security. Without that situation changing the overall collapse is still in sight.

The same holds true for Teachers, Police, City Workers or Corporate Executives. If you don't change the system to make it more profitable or less costly then nothing is really changed by simply adding more money. You only change the time frame in which it all comes to a crashing end.

Cheers,

Mike

PBS Sesame Street in the fight against Fox News

Fox News now that's trashy news show!

WHAT!

PBS aired an episode of the long time children's favorite Sesame Street claiming Fox News is a trashy news show. Watch it for yourself.



Is that really where we are now? PBS "Public Broadcasting Service" is a public entity that receives Tax Payer dollars in order to survive. With out that support we wouldn't have Big Bird or Elmo and our children's lives would all the more bland for it. But with that support PBS has no business getting involved in a political position using the children as pawns.

Cheers,

Mike

Doug Hoffman Lost

In my opinion it is a shame Doug Hoffman lost in the 23rd district race. It's only one seat in the House so it's not really a big deal in larger scope of things, but it would have been nice to see the Tea Party movement be successful. Instead the Huffington Post and all it's little minions are already poking fun at the "Tea Baggers" for losing. In my opinion Owens won due to a cool calculated plan between his camp and that of Dede Scozzafava. When a person drops out of a race a few days before an election the ballots are already printed and people already know who they are going to vote for. Dede cared more about having another Liberal in House than she did about being the person to represent her constituents. That's why dropping out made the most sense because dropping out and giving her support for the Democrat opponent would split her base between those who wanted a Liberal and those who wanted a Conservative. Then the remaining group would seal the Deal.

The Dumb Asses strike again. The Dumb Ass vote wins another election for A Democrat. 6% voted for Dede anyway even after she dropped out. Those are the Dumb Asses who made up their mind weeks ago to vote for her and then they tuned back in to American Idol and the World Series. mostly those are people who only vote by party but since Dede is a women, "we think" some of those folks might have also voted for her to show sexual solidarity. You know the whole sisterhood of the traveling pants suit thing.

Anyway, in this election I don't put all the blame on the 6% Dumb Ass population in Upstate New york, I also blame their local GOP party folks who put her on the ballot to begin with. They obviously did not pick a person who represented the folks in that area. If Half of Dede's vote went one direction and the other went for Hoffman with a 6% gap of Dumb Asses and 45% for Hoffman I think it's safe to say that if the GOP in upstate New york would have put their full faith and support in Hoffman from day one, he would be the new Congressman in Dist. 23. If they Had picked him Newt Gingrich would have given his support from day one and all the RNC base support would have gone to Hoffman as well that would have but him over the top and the whole situation would be very different.

In summary I don't think it's so much a loss for the folks who put their support in Hoffman as it is victory. We were able to show the RNC that we want more candidates like Doug Hoffman in the future. If they want to continue offering folks like Dede Scozzafave and John McCain then the GOP will keep losing elections.

Cheers,

Mike

Jobs Created or Saved, Really?

I have never heard the term jobs created or saved before until the current Presidential Administration of Barack "ManChild" Obama. (I love Rush) What is a saved job? How does one tell if a job is saved? We are told all the time how many jobs are lost and how many jobs are created and that makes sense to some degree if you believe that the data source is legitimate. I however am always a little skeptical when I hear brand new statistics being reported.

Let's look at baseball. When I was a kid I never, never even considered how many pitches a guys threw. I had a vague idea that a pitcher would throw a hundred and some odd pitches if he threw the whole game but no one cared. Then came pitch count and every manager some how now knows that 100 pitches seems to be the cap. We can look back into history and find many examples of pitchers who threw allot more than 100 pitches and lot more often than today's guys. But someone decided to count pitches and now we have a whole new philosophy based on pitch count. At least in baseball you have a count, a clear concise number easily found and confirmed by anyone who cares to look. No disputes, no scandal just another number to go into the history books.

Now politics unlike baseball is much more complicated so many times there is no clear concise number to go to for proof. This makes it all the more difficult when someone comes up with a whole new statistic. Even more maddening is that no one is asking the question. What is a saved job? How is it calculated? How do you know it's SAVED? Is it safe forever, another year, another few weeks? But no, President Obama's administration is telling us the jobs are created or saved and we are to applaud them for it, were it not for their quick action 640,000 more people might be unemployed.

What do the numbers mean? The numbers change from month to month so I'm going to round down to the nearest million. But there are about 12 million people unemployed right now. The unemployment rate is just below 10%. The government reports about 5 to 6 million people are collecting Unemployment payments. This means roughly 7 million are not, but for the sake of argument let's look at just the folks who are collecting benefits. 640K is 10% of 6 Million so for all the hard work and tax dollars spent, Obama has managed to make a 10% dent in overall unemployment or a 1% dent in the unemployment rate. If you look at the whole picture it's more like 4% The Stimulus was $787 Billion so to bring unemployment back to a 4% margin we would need to eliminate another 6%. That would only cost $4.7 Trillion to help ALL the unemployed or a meager $1.5 Trillion is we only care about the folks who are collecting benefits.

Let's come back to reality for a minute and only look at what has actually been done. The 640,000 jobs saved or created is a White House number, they gave it and are happy about it. They want us all to be excited about 640,000 jobs.

Yay Obama your our man if you can't do it no one can, GOOOOOO Obama!!!

Now many crazy right wing extremists don't believe the 640K is real but again for arguments sake I'm going to front them a modest 640,000 jobs. The White House claims only $340 Billion of the 787 has been committed so far and half of that went for small business loans. (My right wing extremist friends and I don't believe that either but oh well) That means by using their numbers $170 Billion created or saved the 640,000 jobs.

Do you see where I'm going with this???

Yes, you and I and all of our fellow U.S. Citizens. Tax payers and welfare leeches alike have allowed the Government to spend $265,625.00 per job saved or created. Yup! Kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't it? Just think how big of an impact it would have on the country if instead of creating or saving those jobs Obama would have said, "if you lose your job we will pay your living expenses for 2 to 4 years and pay your tuition for a trade school or local college so you can learn new skills for a better job. With an allowance of $30,000 per year for rent/mortgage and food and $12,000 per year for tuition. 640,000 people would only have cost us $168,000 each.

If we did that for ALL of the unemployed people in the U.S. right now, it would cost a smidge over $1 Trillion dollars. I'm not saying I support this idea but just consider for a little more than the Stimulus bill each person who lost their job could have instead of collecting a few hundred dollars a week for a few months could have received an education or training for 4 years.

Cheers,

Mike