This has been a big news week for politics! So much, I was having a hard time keeping up, and I do apologize for that.

In a little less than three-weeks, I have seen nothing but disaster after disaster, after disaster for our newly elected President and his Administration.

DISASTER 1 (Stimulus): Anytime, any, politician from either political party, starts shouting that "we need to hurry up!" "We must not wait!" "We have to move quickly!" "We need immediate action!" "If we don't take action right now!" I become very suspicious. This is the perfect time to start watching those politicians, and asking questions as to the sense of urgency. When politicians try to move quickly on something, I have found they are attempting to hide something from the American people. President Obama seems to be very good at attempting to hurry things along! Now, I have been accused in the past of fear mongering, but talk about FEAR MONGERING!

Obama said Thursday February 5, 2009, "The time for talk is over. The time for action is now."

"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."

"Obama Stresses Urgency Now For Stimulus Bill" -

Feb 4, 2009 - WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says the recession will turn into a "catastrophe" if the economic stimulus is not passed quickly.

Obama rejected several criticisms of the plan: that tax cuts alone will solve the problem, or that longer-term goals such as energy independence and health care reform are not also critical to address at the same time. The White House released some of Obama's remarks ahead of an event on executive compensation limits.

Obama subtly referenced his win in November while arguing that recalcitrant lawmakers need to get behind his approach. Obama urged members of Congress "to act without delay" while also promising to "work to make it stronger."

The way I see it, ramming the "stimulus bill" through Congress as fast as possible, would have eliminated the chance of the American people to see what is really in the bill. Eliminating a chance for the American people to see just exactly what their tax dollars would be used for. What is really in the bill? Billions of dollars of big government spending on big government projects, with little so called stimulus, that our children and grandchildren will have to foot the bill for.

According to the most recent calculations at the time of this writing, the National Review is reporting the following:

"Senate Bill Still Costs More than House Bill [Mark Hemingway]

Senate GOP sending this out:

The $780 billion figure doesn't include the $46.5 billion in amendments added to the stimulus bill this week. According to our numbers, the deal is at least $827 billion, $7 billion MORE than the House passed bill. With debt, that comes to $1.175 trillion total cost for the new deal.

Only in Washington can an increase over the original bill cost be sold as a cut.

This figure includes:

$780 B (for base deal)

$46.5 B (for amendments added during debate)

$348 B (for debt service)

Total equals $1.175 Trillion

To put that in perspective, the total cost of House bill is $1.168 trillion ($820 billion for bill and $348 billion for debt service)"

My God! This is a disaster. To say nothing of the impending SOCIALIST society we are about to embark upon. I fear for our children. I really do!

DISASTER 2 (Executive Cap):President Obama has imposed a $500,000 cap for executives receiving tax payer bailout out money. Now, some so-called conservatives and republicans agree with this. I do not, and here is why!

"Obama caps executive pay tied to bailout money" -

First, I ask. What Constitutional authority does the United States Government have to bailout private businesses? The correct answer is none, but none the less, the bailout money was given.

Second, where does the Presidential limits end? If we allow a President the ability and authority to cap private business executive salaries, where will the power end? Okay, they received government subsidizes or bailout, which will be paid back over a long period of time. What about all the people who have accepted government subsidized college loans, which will be paid back over a long period of time? Should the President then have the authority to tell all who have accepted government subsidized college loans where they can work? How much they should make in salary? Or even what field they should go into?

The argument can be made, then, the government subsidizes just about everything from the roads we drive on, to farming, and to you name it! Where is the limits? This has the potential for complete and utter control over individuals. Individuals who are supposed to be free from unreasonable government intrusions! This has the potential for disaster! How long before the government is controlling all businesses? Mike that won't happen!

Well, here is what Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), had to say about that. "'There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,' the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.”

Barney Frank: TARP's comp curbs could be extended to all businesses

Sound the alarm! "ALL U.S. COMPANIES!" My God! Where is the Constitution?

DISASTER 3 (SCHIP/SOCIALIZED MEDICINE): President Obama signed a bill to provide federally funded health care to an estimated 4 million children. Now Mike, is that so unreasonable? Yes it is! This from CNN - "Obama signs children's health initiative into law"

"The final version of the new law, which expands the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by roughly $35 billion over the next five years, passed a sharply polarized House of Representatives earlier in the day, with almost every Democrat voting in favor of the expansion and most Republicans opposing it.

With the bill, Obama said at a White House ceremony, "We fulfill one of the highest responsibilities that we have -- to ensure the health and well-being of our nation's children."

The president said the bill was a down payment on his "commitment to cover every single American."

Step number one to socialized medicine!

"This is just more medicinal snake oil cooked up by liberals, because out of every 10 kids who will be added to the SCHIP scheme, six are currently covered by private insurance. The new bill includes kids in families of four earning up to $80,000 per year. But the Congressional Budget Office reports that 77 percent of such children already have private health insurance, according to Michael F. Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank. And there is no empirical evidence that this Nanny State Band-Aid and similar programs are cost-effective ways of improving children's health, say economists Helen Levy and David Meltzer.

Expanding SCHIP could make a bad situation worse by discouraging work. The Urban Institute offers an eye-opening example of the Law of Unintended Consequences:

"A single mother of two earning minimum wage in New Mexico who increased her earnings by $30,000 would find no change in her net income: She would pay an additional $4,000 in taxes and lose $26,000 in SCHIP and other government benefits," the institute concludes."

"SCHIP failures: Liberal malpractice" from the Pittsburg Tribune-Review Editorial

Disaster 4 (National Security): Well as for the safety and security of our nation, let us see what the Obama Administration has done. Terror suspect Al-Nashiri, suspected of master minding the USS Cole Bombing and former Persian Gulf Operations Chief for al Qaeda, had the Military Commission charges withdrawn against him without prejudice. That means the charges can be reinstated at a later time. Al-Nashiri remains in custody, without charges pending against him. How nice for the victim's families....

President Obama doesn't believe the military commissions set up by the Bush Administration are legitimate, or the proper way to proceed against U.S. detainees. No, Obama believes the proper avenue is our civilian court system and the avenue of due process of law. Well, in a time of war, when terrorists and enemy combatants are picked up in the field, we don't just throw yellow crime scene tape out. We don't just call out CSI to collect evidence against them. No we don't! They are enemy combatants, they are held as enemy combatants, and most

importantly, they are not citizens of the United States. These people being held were picked up in the battle field, and are a threat to the lives of our American Soldiers, our Allied Soldiers, American interests, and most importantly American Citizens. Their case belongs before a military commission not a federal tribunal.

Speaking of Due Process, Obama wanted to afford Al-Nashiri of Due Process; however, the United States will be keeping Al-Nashiri in custody without charges pending for how long? Yes, pick one Mr. President? Does he get Due Process or are you holding him as an enemy combatant? You can't have it both ways, because you are being a hypocrite.

ABC News: Military Commission Charges Dropped Against Terror Suspect Al-Nashiri -

This leads me into the closing of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. One thing the Bush Administration understood was that bringing enemy combatants onto American soil would allow the military enemy combatants access to our criminal justice system. Again, I believe terrorist enemy combatants should not be allowed access to a federal tribunal. What will we do with all of the combatants currently being held at Gitmo? If they're released, we will see them returning to the front lines engaging American troops, plotting against the United states, our interests and our citizens. As has already happened!

In addition to weakening our resolve against terrorists, terror suspects, enemy combatants, Obama is calling for a $55 billion cut in the defense budget by 2010! A 10% reduction in our defense budget in the middle of a war? We are cutting our defense budget, but increasing spending everywhere else! Does this make any sense? One of the main reasons the States created the Federal Government was for national defense and national security issues. That's right, the States created the Federal Government, not the other way around!

Fox News: Defense Official: Obama Calling for Defense Budget Cuts -

Disaster 5: Obama's Cabinet picks? This is entirely new article, which I will commentate during next weeks personal editorial!

Happy Valentine's Day, and have a great week!


"Obama Stresses Urgency Now For Stimulus Bill" -

"Obama caps executive pay tied to bailout money" -

Barney Frank: TARP's comp curbs could be extended to all businesses

"SCHIP failures: Liberal malpractice" from the Pittsburg Tribune-Review Editorial

ABC News: Military Commission Charges Dropped Against Terror Suspect Al-Nashiri -

Fox News: Defense Official: Obama Calling for Defense Budget Cuts -