The Stock Market Surge Proves Wall Street Trusts Obama...Oh Really?

I was recently taking a long drive home from a business trip and enjoying a rare opportunity to listen to Rush and then Hannity on the radio. One of Hannity's liberal callers (I love that he is so willing to take calls from libs) tried to make Hannity admit that Wall Street is happy with Obama's economic policy. The caller's reason: the stock market is up 4000 points since he took office.

Sean did a reasonable job of explaining to the man that the stock market is only one indicator, but, frankly, he failed to sufficiently address the man's mistaken conclusion.

There is a very reasonable explanation as to why the stock market is going up these past several months.

Where else were investors going to put their money? When trying to predict the market, you have to always remember that investors are investors. They make their living INVESTING. They will look for the best place to INVEST their money and they will INVEST it. Where else are there profits to be made but in the stock market?

Banks? Failing at record rates and paying little more than a couple of percentage points in yields.

Bonds? Perhaps, but again, unless they are planning on taking that junk bond ride again (that's what led to the '87 crash), there isn't much by way of a good yield there either.

Real Estate? only if they want to wait a good long time to make money, or are willing to do some serious speculating.

Gold, already being done and no one is dumb enough to put ALL their money into a commodity of any kind.

All other investments, currency trading, commodity trading and so on are merely too risky for more than a small percentage of a person's portfolio.

This leaves us with stocks. Look at what the investors were seeing a year ago after the crash. Stocks at relative all time lows. Where can they possibly go from there, but up. Could they have gone down? Of course. But the relative risk of that happening was far less strenuous for investors to bear in light of the fact that there was literally no other option with even close the potential upside.

So, why are stocks up? Because that's what happens when the market loses 50% of its value in a matter of weeks. It leaves investors with very positive opportunities to make money. And once they start buying, the train is rolling.

Will it last? That's the big question.

When markets hit a big down turn or a big upswing, it is generally fueled with emotion. When that happens, the pendulum swings in the market will be large at first, up and down and up again and down again. The nice thing about market economics is that eventually the emotion gives way to serious analytical evaluation of the economics of each stock, each industry, each market, and each economy.

When that happens, in this case, the reality of our current economic situation will settle in. Huge deficits, staggering unemployment, the virtual (and soon to be literal) collapse of the dollar, bludgeoning taxes with more to come, inevitable hyper-inflation, increasing numbers of failed banks and companies across the country and no prospects for change will drive the markets to all time lows sooner or later (most likely sooner).

Call me a doomsayer if you will. But, unlike my liberal friends and enemies, I am not all too confident in what our President and his friends in Congress are doing to fix things. And, in fact, I am not too far from believing that they are orchestrating it. But that's a topic for another day.

This President Has No Honor

We saw things coming down this road over the first several months of his presidency, but in the past few days, the obvious lack of anything resembling honor in this man has become plain as day.

While most of the country is mourning and in shock at the atrocities of Fort Hood, this president is more concerned about making shouts out to his supporters. While former president, George Bush is quietly and unobtrusively visiting the families of those who lost oves ones in Fort Hood, this president is busy setting up a photo op at Dover Air Base to give us the impression that he give a rip about the dying soldiers in Afghanistan.

While any other president would put the business of legislation on hold for a few days to LEAD the nation in a time of mourning over the deaths of 13 in Fort Hood, this president is busy strong arming fence sitting legislators over his health care reform bill.

While throngs of people are being touched by the symbolism of the launch of the USS New York with its 15 tons of Trade Center steel in its hull, this president is visiting Capital Hill to rally the troops so he can have utter control over our country's health care system.

While troops are dying nearly daily in Afghanistan this president makes sure he doesn't miss his weekly game of golf.

While this Muslim extremist is lying in a coma after killing 13 in the name of Allah this president is busy making sure he's not called a terrorist or misunderstood for this act of "human disaster".

While growing numbers of people on both sides of the political spectrum are calling for this president to unite the country, he is more concerned about spending millions on lawyers whose only job is to make sure NO ONE gets access to his personal records (birth, school, passports, etc.)...leading a growing number of people to ask the only obvious question, "Why don't you just give them the records and END the speculation and divisiveness?"

This man has no honor. He, by his own press secretary's words, is not interested in listening to complaints and angry rhetoric. He is just focused on his agenda. That's right, to hell with the country...to hell with our constitution...to hell with us all...so long as he achieves his agenda.

To hell with with you, Mr. President. We're taking our country back and I DARE you to try and stop us.

NY-23 and NJ Are The New Lexington and Concord

The past 10 days or so have seen an amazing sequence of events in the New Conservative Revolution. New York's 23rd Congressional District and New Jersey's Governor's race have become the first battlegrounds in the fight to restore liberty and sanity in our country.

A brief view of the history of New York's 23rd Congressional District is in order. First, no "registered" Democrat has won this seat since the Civil War. However, as we are discovering ever so quickly, the letter following a candidate's name, is always a good indication of their true affiliation. This was never more true, in this district, than with the previous man who held this seat.

John McHugh, a registered Republican, was recently appointed by the Obama Administration to the position of Secretary of the Army. This is a position McHugh earned by selling his vote on this year's House version of the Cap and Trade bill, a bill passed by a mere six votes. McHugh was one of only eight Republicans to vote for that piece of legislation.

Contrary to Newt Gingrich's claim that the committee of District Republicans who nominated Dede Scozzafova to be their nominee to replace McHugh were NOT unanimous in their endorsement of her. It took at least three votes to finally nominate her.

A closer look at Scozzafava's views on certain key issues quickly revealed that she was practically, if not literally, just as liberal in her views as Bill Owens, the Democratic nominee. She supports gay marriage, abortion, says she would have voted FOR the Stimulus bill, and more.

Within short order, it became clear that conservatism was not being represented in this election. A vote for Owens, was akin to a vote for Scozzafave, and a vote for Scozzafava was akin to vote for Owens. Conservatives in the District knew they needed to do something. Within weeks, they recruited Doug Hoffman, a conservative Republican, to run for the seat on the Conservative Party ticket.

At first, Hoffman didn't have much by way of support. He had no money, not big name endorsements, not big party support structure and little time. He was trailing Scozzafava and Owens in the polls by 20 points. But then the unthinkable happened, his numbers got a little better and Sarah Palin openly endorsed him. Soon after, so did Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and other conservatives.

Hoffman's numbers rose. He was bringing in all sorts of money, gaining grass roots volunteers and more. Within days, he had passed Scozzafava in the polls and was on the heels of Owens. A few polls even had him in the lead.

Then the next unthinkable thing happened, Scozzafava withdrew, suspending her campaign. Immediately the rest of the Republican Party backed Hoffman and it became a two man race between him and Owens.

Now, as of today, the next unthinkable event has occurred. Scozzafava's true colors as a liberal in elephant's clothing came into clear view as she came out in favor of Bill Owens. Her reasoning is that Owens would best reflect the views of the District's previous representative, John McHugh. Well, she couldn't be more correct about that. The problem, for her, is that we don't want someone to represent the Republican Party or conservatives who is willing to sell his vote for a promotion.

The outcome of this vote will be made clear on Tuesday, but, to me, this represents the first shots of the New Revolution. Conservatism will not stand by and watch this country be "fundamentally transformed" into a socialist/Marxist regime under the control of Barack Hussein Obama. It is not a foregone conclusion that Doug Hoffman will win this election. But if we can bring this victory home, we will have dealt the first major blow to our adversary in this War. This IS our Lexington.

The second great battle of this War, our Battle of Concord if you will, is in New Jersey. While the conservative/Republican candidiate in Virginia will, barring some disaster, win the Governor's seat there (and we would love to see similar results in the Lieutenant Governor's race and Secretary of State's race), the race for New Jersey's Governor's seat is the New Battle of Concord here.

New Jersey is clearly a blue state, as liberal as they come. For Chris Christie to even be running even with Corzine at this point is already a defeat for Obama. The fact that he, himself, is having to come out, during the last days, to campaign for Corzine is testimony to the importance of this race.

You see, to Obama, losing Virginia, a traditional Red State, is not a big loss. But to lose New Jersey would be devasting to him. This is now especially true because of Obama's appearances in New Jersey the past few days. If he cannot bring this seat home, he will be forced to re-group and re-formulate his entire presidency. He will have lost a great deal of political clout within his own party, especially with the Blue Dogs. No one in Congress will legitimately feel their seat is safe.

We will have effectively turned the tide of this war. Obama, Pelosi and Reid (along with their cohorts in progressivism, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and others) will NOT be able to buy anymore votes. Health care reform, as it currently stands, will be dead. Cap and trade will likely fail. As will Card Check and other elements of the socialist Obama game plan.

Like the original battles of Lexington and Concord, we don't necessarily have to win NY-23 or the NJ Governor's seat. The mere events leading to this Tuesday's election are enough to wake up a lot of people. Winning in one or both of these races, will only accelerate our victory. For all our sakes, I hope and pray we win both.

Only One Reason Needed to Reject Government Run Health Care

For several months, now, a vast majority of Americans have been inundated with opinions, facts, opinions ON the facts, lies, accusations of lying, apologies for accusations about lying, bills, proposals, ideas about bills, thousands of pages of bills, sob stories, accusations, threats, bullying and so on, all about one topic... Health Care Reform.

Yet for all the arguments FOR and AGAINST the reams of pages of health care reform proposals, there is only one real argument against a government run health care plan that need be presented: Every single program that the federal government has taken on since, at least, the early 1900s, has sooner or later expanded FAR beyond the initial proposals and cost FAR more than initially projected. That's because the agenda of Progressives is about control...the formation of greater and greater government control over every major aspect of society and eventually onto EVERY aspect of life.

Let's take a closer looker at the history of the federal government when it comes to major government run programs.

a) The federal income tax law. When first initiated it seemed harmless enough. It was a measly 7% in 1913...on income over $500,000. Do you have any clue what $500,000 of income in 1913 would be today? Based upon inflation rates from then till now, it would mean that in order to have to pay the top marginal tax rate of 7% you would have had to make what is the equivalent today of $10,000,000/year. Holy Cow for the Hindus amongst us.

But it didn't stop there. Due to the "emergency" of the first world war, Congress felt compelled to raise funds for the war by altering the tax rates. In 1917, the rate went to 67% of incomes over $2,000,000. Still not so bad. After all, there weren't THAT many people making that much money in 1917. Funny, though, how WWI began shortly after the US instituted the federal income tax.

Well, you'd think that once the war was over that rates would go back to what they were originally. You'd be wrong, though. In 1918, when the war ended, the highest marginal rate was 77% of incomes over $1,000,000. The very next year, rates DID go down, though...to 73% of incomes over $1,000,000. By 1922, it was 58%....of incomes over $200,000...oops, coming after the middle class...well, not really..not yet.

This sort of pattern of taking more and more money from people continued throughout the 20th century. But this only addresses the HIGHEST marginal tax rates. Let's look at the LOWEST rates...where people BEGIN to pay taxes. In 1913, a person had to make $20,000 per year before they paid a dime in income taxes. That would equate to $400,000/year today. How would you like that make $400,000 before you have to pay a dime in income taxes? And this is before there was that silly little FICA tax. That's coming later.

By 1917, you remember, the year we entered the Great War, the lowest marginal rate had doubled from 1% to 2%...but rather than beginning at $20,000/year of income, it began at $2000/year of income. When the war ended, that lowest rate was 6% of incomes of $4000/year and dropped progressively to 1.125% of incomes over $4000/year. It never did return to the $20,000/year level.

By the time WWII, the next "emergency", drew us into war, the lowest marginal rates went to 10%, then 19%, then 21% of incomes over 4,000/year. The maximum rates went to as high as 94% of incomes over $200,000. FDR had done what the progressives wanted.

Once again, the libs used their "emergency" to step up their control over our lives. The lowest marginal rates never again went back to that 4% rate. In fact, it wasn't until Reagan that they went below 20% of incomes over $4000/year.

Take note of the fact that there was no such thing as adjusting the rates to offset inflationary growth in incomes. They called this "income tax creep". More and more Americans found themselves making more money but also suddenly having to pay taxes on it. The Feds even reduced, not increased, exemptions used to reduce taxable income. In 1913, individuals received a $3000 personal exemption. By WWII that exemption was down to $500.

You know the current state of the income tax...convoluted and corrupted by special interests, earmarks and out of control IRS enforcement powers.

b) As if that's not enough, let's look at Social Security system. Originally designed as merely a supplemental retirement benefit with a tax rate of 1% on incomes up to $3000/year. In today's dollars, that would be a cap of about $45,000 of income/year. Not TOO bad...very palatable for the public to pay for a safety net retirement plan. Well, once in, the government didn't stop there...raising the rates precipitously over the next 70 years to what they are today...a max of 7.65% paid by both YOU and your employer on incomes UPTO $75,000/year.

But, of course, we get more benefits then we did in 1937, right. Yep, the SSA now has to pay a DEATH benefit to our family to the tune of $252....WHOOHOO!!!. And let's not forget they've also added a disability benefit...but, oh, wait, that's part of a totally separate tax...an ADDITIONAL nearly 1% (yes, the same amount as the original Social Security tax) of ALLLLLL income...no cap.

c) How about something simple, like driver's licenses and vehicle registrations? Federal courts have ruled over and over and over again that Citizens have a fundamental right to use the public roads for personal travel. Black's Law Dictionary in 1838 defined a "license" as permission from the state to do something which you would ordinarily have no right to do. What "permission" do we need from the government if the courts say we have a fundamental right to use the public roads for personal use?

Well, here's how we got to THAT point. Original licensing and vehicle registration laws were designed to regulate use of the public roads for COMMERCIAL purposes...research it, if you don't believe me. But this makes sense. The courts never ruled that we have a fundamental right to use the public roads for COMMERCIAL purposes. Therefore, the people who used the roads for commercial purposes would, legitimately, need to pay a fee for the privilege of doing so. And would, legitimately, have to register the vehicles they use for those commercial purposes.

So how did they get us to the point where we all needed to obtain a license to use the public roads for non-commercial purposes and to register our personal property with the state and pay a fee to do so? They slowly and progressively and, yes, secretly, redefined terms in the vehicle codes. Instead of defining a "driver" as someone who uses the public roads for commercial purposes, they made it seem that ANYONE who uses the public roads using a vehicle is a "driver". It was a slow and heinously deceptive corruption of power and control over our lives.

d) Another license that has become abused by government is the marriage license. When in the world did it become necessary for us to obtain permission from the government to get married? Well, it all began post Civil War. Some states required "freed" slaves to obtain licenses to get married. In some states, it became necessary for whites who wanted to marry a black to obtain permission to do so as well. Instead of repealing such ignorant laws, or declaring them unconstitutional, the government saw an opportunity to take further control over our lives by redefining terms in the law and thus requiring ALL people to obtain permission from the state.

Part of this issue centers around other, more corrupt power grabs by the government. But I will not get into them at this time. My point in bringing these issues up is to prove that the government is not going to be satisfied with just passing a health reform bill providing an alternative public option. Once in the door, this government has proved themselves to be usurpers, greedy for more and more power and control over our lives.

This is not about control? Think again. This is ALL about control. There are numerous reasons for different people to despise government run health care/insurance: abortion opponents, immigration reformists, lower tax advocates, business proponents, civil rights advocates and more. But THE ONE all encompassing reason to reject ANY and ALL efforts to reform health care/insurance which would potentially...to ANY degree...give government an IN to controlling the industry is the fact that once IN, the government will NEVER stop.

Once in control of the health care industry, there is almost literally NOTHING to hinder them from using that power to stick their noses and power grabs into virtually any area of our lives. Heck, there are already people talking about the health risks of too much internet use, too much cell phone use, too much video games, fast food, ....etc., etc., etc...can YOU see an end to what they might go after under this power? I certainly cannot.

Overexposing a President

It is obvious to almost everyone that Obama is appearing in public a lot more than other presidents have. But the numbers are truly astounding.

Interviews by MSM in the first nine months:
Obama - 41 (only 2 by Foxnews)
Bush - 8
Clinton - 7

Major Fundraising Appearances in the first nine months:
Obama - 21
Bush - 6
Clinton - 5

Interesting little side note to this last stat, in those 21 fundraising events, Obama raised less than half the money that Bush raised in his mere six events.

But is it any wonder how terribly overloaded we are by this president. I mean, seriously, even newlyweds need to have some time apart or they will just go nuts. Perhaps this is why so many of his avid fans are, at best, lukewarm about him these days. Its sort of like they're saying, "shut up, get off the TV, stop playing golf and dancing and running off to Copenhagen for the sake of your Chicago buddies...and DO YOUR JOB."

Enough said...except to say that considering what he does when he IS doing his job....hmmm...

HEY MR. PRESIDENT....CAN WE TALK TO YOU ABOUT A FEW TV APPEARANCES AND INTERVIEWS?

Sensible Conservatism and the 2010 Election

Yes, its early to start talking about the 2010 races. But, the sooner WE start talking about the more likely the candidates, including those already in Congress, will get the idea that this election is vital to US. But more important than being vital, this election will either be the beginning of the turn-around or the last nail in the coffin of conservatism and our Constitution.

The turning point of the 2010 election will lay with the sensibility or lack of sensibility of the conservative voters. Today, Dick Armey came out supporting the third party ultra-conservative candidate in the upstate New York congressional race. Why? Because that candidate BEST suits HIS ideologies. What will be the results? The third party candidate will take votes away from the Republican candidate. The Republican candidate will make it so this ultra conservative third party candidate will have NO CHANCE of winning. And the Democratic candidate, clearly the LIBERAL of them all, will probably win. Congratulations Dick...what a great achievement for Conservatism there.

The same thing is happening in New Jersey, a traditionally liberal state, where Christie, the Republican, was up by double digits a month or two ago. Now, with the advance of a more conservative third party candidate, Chris Daggett, the race between Christie and Corzine has narrowed to a literal toss-up.

Why is this happening? Because the uber-conservatives among us have decided that they cannot support a candidate who does not represent their views completely. Instead, they will gladly support a third party candidate that more acutely represents their views, even if that candidate has absolutely no chance of winning and most likely will deplete votes from the less perfect Republican candidate, to the benefit of the most liberal and least perfect of all candidates, the Democrat. I'm sorry to offend you, my friends, but this is foolishness and utterly senseless.

The time to vett candidates and promote the most conservative candidates is during the primaries. Once the general election occurs, rest assured that the winner will almost always be a Democrat or a Republican (yes there are districts and even Senate positions that can and will go to Independents and hopefully even more). But it is completely self-defeating to our cause to support ultra-conservative candidates who have NO chance of winning at the expense of losing that seat to the worst of all candidates...the liberal Democrat.

Is it the best world to have a not-so-perfect Republican win the election? No. But it is certainly better than shooting ourselves in the foot to the point of letting the liberal Democrats maintain control of Congress.

What should we do then? First, the primaries are not all that far away. Start working for your favorite conservative candidate now...no matter what party they in. Try to get them on the ticket of one of the two main parties. Second, keep a close watch on the atmosphere in your district in favor of independent candidates. If an independent candidate has any chance of winning in your district, by all mean, support them. If not, show some sensibility and support the most conservative candidate of the two main parties.

Third, once the party nominees are set, support the most conservative one of those (unless, again, like in point two, there is a chance an Independent can be victorious. It is fruitless to support a "better" candidate who has no chance of winning over the more liberal of the main candidates.

Fourth, try to maintain and channel of communication with whomever wins the election, but especially if it is the candidate you voted for. Most likely you will not agree with them on all issues. So keeping touch with them is your chance to change their mind on issues upon which you disagree.

Lastly, let me remind you to be sensible. Leave your arrogance and pride at the door to the poll.

Is the White House Occupied By Petulant Teenagers?

So why exactly is the White House assaulting FoxNews? Frankly, from everything I've seen from this administration over the first nine months it could be almost anything.

There have been numerous instances when this administration has behaved not so much unlike a bunch of petulant teenagers. Permit me to explain.

I took each of my kids to lunch around their thirteenth birthdays. Amongst the talk about peer pressure and drugs and teen sex, I made one other thing very clear to them. I told them that now that they were teenagers, its very important that, between now and their twentieth birthday, they need to make every vital decision that they are ever going to make for the rest of their lives....while they still know everything.

Teenagers, for the most part, want everything handed to them, don't want to have to work for it and have almost NO concept of the costs involved in getting what they want. Teens never want to have to face the consequences of their decisions and thus feel that no matter what decision they make, it should be the right one. They want everyone to else to agree with them. And whenever anyone doesn't, sparks fly. God only knows how us adults haven't killed ourselves without them to help us. And damned with our old fashioned way of doing things. They're a new generation and they assuredly know better. Anything or any way of doing things older then their dirty laundry laying under their bed is clearly antiquated, outdated and irrelevant. And let's not forget that we adults are the cause of EVERYTHING wrong in their world.

Tell me that's not this administration. I dare you.

And no doubt that's one of the reasons behind their juvenile attack of FoxNews. FoxNews' very existence is keeping them from getting what they want. And clearly they know what's best. They can't even understand HOW people, any people, would ever watch that network, let alone believe a thing they say. After all, THEY know best. We should all be listening to them, or at least their controlled version of the news.

But, all sarcasm aside, there is something even worse about these people. They aren't just a bunch of petulant teens. They're over-aged, over-educated petulant teens. These guys never grew up. They went off to college and had their egos stroked as they smoked their pot and dreamed about nirvana, all the while lambasting anyone and anything that stood in the way of their Utopian dream.

There was something sincerely diabolical about all that dreaming. They actually came up with a plan to achieve it. It started with Sociologists Cloward and Piven who wrote a paper on how to destroy American capitalism and usher in socialist dreams. Saul Alinsky followed with the rules of engagement for these post-pubescent pipe-dreamers (and we know where the pipe came from).

Then along came people like Bill Ayers, George Soros, Bernadine Dohrn, and many, many others. They began the process of establishing the right connections with news organizations, Hollywood elite, authors, educators, lecturers, musicians and more. The goal of that being to numb the country to their message. So that when the time came for their chosen one to be revealed, the country, and the world, would be ready for his message.

One little problem, however, two of the very tools they used over the years to ingrain their message into the minds of the perpetually dumb-downed Americans...the news media and internet...suddenly became the tools for exposing them. And they don't like that.

What's worse for these petulant teens? They can't do anything about it. They can't just shut down the internet, even though they would love to do that and technically could. They know that reality is, they cannot. Nor can they shut down FoxNews...not with the millions of people watching it everyday. And, despite all the rhetoric, they can do nothing about the fact that ten of the top eleven nationally rated talk radio shows are conservative.

This is why Obama is making so many speeches, showing up on TV all the time. He knows he has to keep his message out there. He also knows that he cannot keep that up forever. And this is why Dunn, Axelrod, Emanuel and the others are pulling out all the stops to attack FoxNews. And, yes, like those stubborn, petulant teens, they WILL try to control the internet and shut down conservative radio.

BTW, lest you get caught up the petulance of these little boys and girls, they are no dummies. Do NOT be caught off guard by this. There is a very good chance this is all a diversion to take attention from something else these guys are trying to pull off...yet another ploy of a conniving, deceptive teenager.