Europeans up in arms over U.S spending habits

As we enter the eve of the G-20 meeting, the couple of months of Obama's presidency have raised the anxiety levels in parts of Europe. There is talk among many Europeans country leaders that President Obamas policies on his record spending could weaken the economy of all countries in the long run. With Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who holds the rotating EU Presidency, described U.S. fiscal spending as a "road to hell." Chancellor Angela Merkel has expressed skepticism about using heavy borrowing to solve a global crisis she has no intention of injecting more money. Even Finance Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of France said "Recent U.S. calls on Europe for an additional budgetary effort do not suit us.'' , and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said he is "a little bit worried" about his country's big investment in U.S. debt.

From a Interview with the Financial Times newspaper
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said ‘we cannot borrow forever’ throwing too much money into reviving global economic growth would make the recovery unsustainable, She added: “We must look at the causes of this crisis. It happened because we were living beyond our means ... governments encouraged risk-taking in order to boost growth.

“We were spending too much to create growth that was not sustainable. It isn’t just that the banks took over too many risks. Governments allowed them to do so by neglecting to set the necessary [financial market] rules.
I for one never thought in my lifetime I would ever hear the amount of complaining by Socialist Europeans about the way the United States is going about spending there way out of a crisis. The calls from all countries to President Obama to halt the spending are going on deaf ears; President Obama is determined to listen only to the extreme left wing of his party regarding the restructuring of the United States giving the government control over private institutions within this administration. But President Obama who stated his administration would listen to the cries of American people doesn't seem to care about what others think unless you are on board with the way the administration wants to spend our tax dollars.

Americans free fall from Grace

All I have heard from the Obama administration over the last few days has been about the reversal of freedoms of all classes of people by the destruction of the so-called privileged classes of our country by saying greed is bad, that if you have the will to build or create a successful profit for your business that you are taking from those who are the have nots of our society. The United States was built on the idea that every American has the same opportunity to earn a good wage, and that good competition would increase wealth for all people living in America.

The Obama Administration has also changed the way foreign policy is handled by embracing the worst of the worst dictators and allowing them to control the agenda. Now China is controlling the waterways of the Oceans, Russia is in talks with Cuba and other South American countries in our hemisphere about opening up bases to patrol our boarders and to spy on the United States. North Korea will continue to build nuclear missiles until they can reach the west coast of the United States, and Iran will continue to build there own nuclear missiles in its quest to rid the middle east of Israel. The Administration has chosen to not call those few people who killed 3,000 Americans on 911 terrorists because they don't want to offend so these terms like "terrorism" and "September 11" Global War on Terror are out and these new terms are "overseas contingency operations", “man-caused disasters” and yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Mexico's Leaders that it is the fault of the United States with regards to the violence that has taken over that countries' cities and is now crossing over into the communities of the United States by there own drug lords. This is just the beginning of America losing its identity by letting other countries control the agenda on foreign policy.

The United States, if left up to the Obama Admintration the word "change" that Americans were looking for will change how Americans visualize moral values, and the social ideals with the socializing of our country by taxing those who work hard. By socializing our government, Banks, and corporations allowing unions to have more power to control more businesses who then can funnel those union dues to the Democratic Party so that they can maintain the government influence over the United States.

When Does the Campaign Stop and the Governance Begin?

By Red County Contributor Tearesa Trujillo
The president will visit Orange County, California today. One of the most conservative bastions in the nation is in the spotlight as the forty-fourth President of the United States tries to sell his economic stimulus package to the nation.
He is visiting a county where six out of the seven congress members voted against the stimulus. Only Democrat Loretta Sanchez supported additional government bailout and unprecedented spending as a band-aid for the bad economic outlook.
The Orange County Register was reporting on the rock concert vibe of people waiting in line for the coveted town hall tickets at the Orange County Fairgrounds.
This feels more like a campaign swing through California than a serious trip by a president eager to govern. Obama is proud of the fact he is a great campaigner but hasn't really shone as a president.
And that leads me to an important question.
When does the campaign stop and the governance begin?
The president has been in office less than two months. He inherited a much more sober nation than the one he campaigned in. The economic turmoil has only increased as the president, his Treasury Secretary, and his economic advisors have made doom and gloom predictions that have collectively caused the American public to recoil at the notion of spending one dime more than is absolutely necessary in their personal lives.
All of this is going on while the government is on the biggest spending spree in government history. International leaders have decried American spending on both governmental and individual levels. Yet, Obama continues to press ahead with a massive government spending plan to cure the nation's woes.
"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy," the president reported on January 9, 2009. This was twelve days before he took office. Last week, 200 prominent economists responded to this statement in a signed public letter denouncing the president's stimulus package. The complete list of economist can be found here: http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf
The Cato Institute advertisement states:
"With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
The list includes a Nobel laureate and prominent economists from major universities. The signers of the letter actually call the president out on his statement that, "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
In the religion of Obama there is no disagreeing with the messiah's proclamations. But, in an open and free society we can disagree. There seems to be plenty of economists willing to stand up to the rising tide of Obamaisms.
The candidate that promised change is using the economic crisis to remake America with back door deals, massive earmark spending, money laundering to foreign banks and investors through the now government controlled AIG, and other tactics that looks too much like the business as usual Washington D.C.
The promised transparency has been thrown to the wind as Obama has now signed at least five major bills without the promised web posting and five day waiting period. The nearly 1100 page stimulus bill, and major change in how and when employees can file a suit over sexual harassment and/or discrimination, and the largest appropriations bill in history, were all signed without the transparency promised.
We have all had an opportunity to see what change means to Barack Obama. Change means much, much more of business as usual in Washington D.C. Change means saddling the taxpayers with massive debt for generations of Americans. Change means that we all lose when our take home pay buys less and our tax bill goes up.
We need a president who governs, not a president who looks good campaigning long after the election is over.
Get to work Mr. President.

Weekly Jobless Claims Drop; Continuing Claims Hit Record

The nation’s economic situation proved to still be slumping after a government report showed the number of workers collecting state unemployment benefits surged to a record high.
The Labor Department reported that weekly jobless claims fell by 12,000 to 646,000 for the week ending March 14. Analysts were expecting 652,000 new claims.
The number of people staying on state benefits jumped by 185,000 to hit a record 5.47 million for the week ending March 7.
The four-week average for new claims jumped to 654,750 -- a 26-year high -- while the four-week average of continuing claims rose to 5.25 million. Continuing claims have increased 10 times in the last 12 weeks and are up 19% since last year.
The slight dip in initial claims doesn’t leave much to celebrate, according to Mark Lieberman, senior economist for FOX Business “Despite the week-week dip, the four-week moving average increased again, and is 58% higher than the weekly average during the 2001 recession and 51% higher than the weekly average during the 1990-91 recession.”
The government also revises last week’s report up to 658,000 from 654,000.

The buffoon President with his sorry Administration

President Obama over the past few days along with the stupid press Secretary Gibbs has been telling the media pool how outraged they have been over these AIG bonuses, while all the time knowing that the Stimulus Bill President Obama had too ............................The buffoon President with his sorry Administration

Obama Defends Health Care, Education Budget Plans

Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth

Another President Nomination Withdraws

Chas Freeman, the former ambassador appointed to be the military's top intelligence analyst, has withdrawn his name following complaints from Democratic and Republican lawmakers who said he was too entangled in foreign affairs to handle the job.

National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, who originally appointed Freeman to the post of National Intelligence Council chairman, announced the move in a statement Tuesday, saying he accepts the decision "with regret." The announcement came just hours after Blair defended Freeman before a Senate committee.

But Freeman released a lengthy statement of his own, accusing his critics of trying to destroy his credibility with libelous attacks.

"I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office," he said. "The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue." He said the attacks would prevent the National Intelligence Council from functioning effectively with him at the helm.

Freeman had become a political lightning rod since he was tapped two weeks ago for the post.

Lawmakers had objected to several controversial statements Freeman has made about Israel and Iraq. And they said the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia was too close to that country, as well as to China.

Freeman said he never accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia and China. He suggested he had fallen victim to what he called the "Israel Lobby."

"The libels on me and their easily traceable e-mail trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East," he said. "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth."

Freeman has in the past compared Israelis to "colonists" and accused the United States of bringing the "Palestinian experience" of humiliation to Iraq.

In his resignation statement, Freeman said: "There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government -- in this case, the government of Israel."

Lawmakers had questioned Freeman's fitness for the intelligence post over the past two weeks, leading the inspector general for the director of national intelligence to agree to examine Freeman's foreign ties. At the time, Blair said the inquiry would put to rest any questions about Freeman.

But a number of top lawmakers, most of them Republicans, suggested Freeman's conflicts could be disqualifying.

Among their concerns were:

-- Freeman's role as president of the Middle East Policy Council, a think tank they say received funding from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Fuad A. Rihani, a consultant for the bin Ladin family's Saudi BinLadin Group, also sits on the group's board of directors -- another trouble spot for Freeman's critics. And they complained the council did not disclose its donors.

-- Freeman's role on a board for the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation, owned by China, and that company's reportedly $16 billion agreement with Iran to develop a gas field in the Middle Eastern country.

The controversy surrounding Freeman heated up last week when Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said he wanted Freeman to withdraw his name. That was after he wrote to Blair on Monday expressing his doubt that Freeman could restore credibility to the national intelligence estimates, or NIEs, the intelligence reports Freeman would be involved in producing.

"I am ... deeply concerned that an individual who reportedly holds radical and extreme views would be chosen to oversee NIEs, the IC's most comprehensive and authoritative intelligence assessments," Hoekstra wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by FOXNews.com.

Hoekstra applauded Freeman's decision to withdraw his name, but called the process "yet another breakdown in the Obama administration vetting."

As NIC chairman, Freeman would have been responsible for drawing from assessments from all 16 intelligence agencies and formulating mid-and-long-term strategic intelligence plans.

More than a dozen lawmakers had already called for an investigation by the time Blair's inspector general, Edward Maguire, decided to launch one. Democratic Rep. Steve Israel, N.Y., first urged Maguire to launch a probe in a letter Saturday. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Israel also asked Maguire to look into Freeman's work with the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation and its deal with Iran.

Blair argued that Freeman's rich background would make him an asset to the intelligence community and other foreign policy analysts had dismissed the criticism of him as a smear campaign.

Freeman has a formidable resume of foreign policy positions that include U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under George H.W. Bush and assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs -- a position that earned him public service awards for his role in creating a NATO-centered post-Cold War European security system. Freeman also served as Richard Nixon's chief translator in China in 1972.

Blair's office said he did not seek White House approval for the appointment, which did not require Senate approval.

But statements the former ambassador made over the last three decades on U.S. peace efforts in the Middle East and Iran's threat to the international community had also prompted some to question his objectivity in a role that requires it.

In a speech to the Pacific Council on International Policy in October 2007, Freeman said the U.S. has "abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel's efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations."

"We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists," he said.

In reference to the Iraq war, Freeman said, "Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience -- of humiliation, dislocation, and death -- to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"By invading Iraq, we transformed an intervention in Afghanistan most Muslims had supported into what looks to them like a wider war against Islam. We destroyed the Iraqi state and catalyzed anarchy, sectarian violence, terrorism and civil war in that country."

Also, The Weekly Standard recently posted a 2006 e-mail from Freeman to a listserv in which he said the Chinese government was "overly cautious" in its effort to "intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud" during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.

FOX News' James Rosen contributed to this report

The president did not make any pledge to eliminate earmarks, WHAT ?

President Obama on Wednesday announced new reforms he said would prevent wasteful earmarks, but spoke in support of the practice and defended what he called an "imperfect" spending bill passed by Congress -- one loaded with thousands of earmarks.

The president did not make any pledge to eliminate earmarks or reduce them. Rather, he and House Democrats announced new reforms to subject them to greater scrutiny and transparency.

"Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district, and that's why I have opposed their outright elimination," Obama said. "But the fact is that on occasion, earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, and fraud and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the 11th hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given legislator, rather than the public interest."

Obama said the reforms would require lawmakers seeking earmarks to post them on their Web sites in advance, so the public and press can review them. He said each earmark should be "open to scrutiny" at public hearings.

"If my administration evaluates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, we will seek to eliminate it," Obama said.

He also said all earmarks for for-profit companies should be subject to competitive bidding requirements.

"The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice," Obama said.

The announcement comes after Congress passed a $410 billion spending package. Obama said he plans to sign the bill, despite the billions of dollars worth of earmarks in it. Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated the package contained 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion.

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama said, adding that he would use it as a "departure point" for enacting new reforms.

He did not respond to a question asking why he is not signing the spending bill in public.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who opposed the earmarks in the bill, criticized his former election opponent Wednesday for not pledging to "use his veto pen" to stop pork-barrel projects.

"The president's rhetoric is impressive, but his statement affirms we will continue to do business as usual in Washington regarding earmarks in appropriations legislation," he said in a written statement. "This is an opportunity missed."

The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision.

Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would force Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on come Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government. That is an unlikely possibility for a president who has spent just seven weeks in office.

The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.

The measure was a top priority for Democratic leaders, who praised it for numerous increases denied by Bush. It once enjoyed support from Republicans.

But the bill ran into an unexpected political hailstorm in Congress after Obama's spending-heavy economic stimulus bill and his 2010 budget plan, which forecast a $1.8 trillion deficit for the current budget year.

The bill's big increases -- among them a 14 percent boost for a popular program that feeds infants and poor women and a 10 percent increase for housing vouchers for the poor -- represent a clear win for Democrats who spent most of the past decade battling with Bush over money for domestic programs. Republicans, though, had called on Obama to veto the measure.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Carter VS Obama what's the difference

Carter preached a message of hope and renewal, and the Media was in love with this man giving him wide spread support, this obscure figure received support from the Liberal Media, which allotted him favorable coverage wherever his campaign took him. With the media's help Carter won key primary election victories, making him into a rock star among the masses. This rock Star image helped him reach his goal by winning the presidency and being the countries new President-Elect in less then 9 months.
President Carter took office January 20, 1977, one of the very first Executive Orders was to give unconditional amnesty to Vietnam War Draft Evaders. He also fired 800 CIA agents including George Bush Sr.

Carter Quote:"The Republican party is a party with a narrow vision, a party that is afraid of the future." The new President's approval ratings was around 70%, which didn't last very long. Even though the press was giving his new agenda all of there support with lots of coverage. the new President,was an experience former Govenor who still suffered from political inexperience. He was very quick to retreat under fire, very indecisive, and was not interested in opposing points of view, when it came to his own polices. In less then four Great years of this Administration President Carter managed to alienate Wallstreet and the Federal Reserve. Because of this administrations polices the American people were given a recession that gave them record high unemployment in double digits, inflation, and interest rates around 17%. Not only was his Domestic policy in disarray, but so was his foreign policy. The Carter Doctrine gave great verbal warnings to the Soviet Union to behave correctly. Carter Quote: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." The Carter Doctrine allowed Tehran to hold the United States hostage with the failed negotiations for our US embassy staff who were being held hostages in Tehran since Nov. 4th 1979. During President Carters Re-Election Bid he threw a hail marry pass, and unded up with a disastrous attempt at military rescue in April 1980. This gave americans one more good reason to elect former Governor Ronald Reagan. This Country is in for a long rocky road ……………

Obama Offers to Scrap Missile Shield If Russia Cooperates on Iran

President Obama offered to consider scrapping plans for a missile defense shield in Europe if Russia helps rein in Iran's nuclear program, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported.

The article said Obama wrote to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell him Russia's aid in resolving the threat from Iran would make the missile shield plans unnecessary, according to an account from Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

A senior administration official told FOX News that Obama sent a letter to Medvedev but "we won't comment on the specifics."

Obama inherited plans to build the system in Poland and the Czech Republic from the Bush administration, but the new administration has equivocated over the project. Though the plans were put in place to deter nations like Iran and North Korea from launching attacks and developing nuclear weapons, Russia has interpreted the planned installation as a threat.

The senior administration official said the U.S. will continue to "consult with the Czech Republic and Poland on the program," but will also continue to review the plan.

"We'll be evaluating the future of the program based on a number of factors ... whether it will work, whether it will be cost-effective, whether it will reduce the threat and whether that threat can be reduced though diplomacy with Russia and our NATO allies," the official said.

Reuters reported last month that the Obama administration would at least review the plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, provided Russia helps curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Clinton is expected to meet with Russia's foreign minister in Geneva later this week.

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said last month that the U.S. wants to "engage" Russia on the issue of the missile defense and review their proposals to "counter missiles from rogue states."

Nominee Ron Kirk to Pay $10,000 in Back Taxes

Ron Kirk, nominated as U.S. Trade Representative in the Obama administration, owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade.

WASHINGTON -- Ron Kirk, nominated as U.S. Trade Representative in the Obama administration, owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to make his payments, the Senate Finance Committee said Monday.

The committee said the taxes arise from Kirk's handling of speaking fees that he donated to his alma mater, and for his deduction of the full cost of season tickets to the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team.

The disclosure made the former Dallas mayor the latest in a string of top-level Obama administration appointees found to have underpaid their taxes, following Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle, who withdrew as candidate for Health and Human Services secretary. Nancy Killefer, Obama's pick for chief performance officer, also bowed out amid tax problems.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House to the underpayments, which were uncovered by the committee's staff in a review of Kirk's nomination papers.

Despite the error, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued a statement calling Kirk "the right person for this job," and said he would attempt to have the nomination moved through the panel quickly.

Kirk routinely gave any speaking fees he earned to Austin College, the committee said, and did not list them on his tax returns.

Instead, the committee said he should have listed the fees as income, then claimed them as charitable donations. The estimated effect was to reduce Kirk's tax bill by an estimated $5,800, according to the report.

Kirk also deducted more than $17,000 as entertainment expenses for the cost of Mavericks' tickets. The committee said he substantiated about $9,900 of that amount, and will owe about $2,600 in taxes on the balance.

The committee said that last fall, Kirk amended his income tax return for 2006, paying an additional $2,188 in tax and $139 in interest after a notification from the Internal Revenue Service. The return was filed by a paid tax preparer, the panel added.