The more I hear about the Obama stimulus package, the less I like it. Yet it is the most “urgent” piece of legislation that his Administration is working on passing, immediately. Just as the $800 billion for the credit crisis had to be immediate.

And just as with the mortgage/credit bailout quick action without forethought provides for mistakes, waste and a few political amendments that no one will notice until after the fact.

As of right now, the Obama stimulus package is being referred to by President Obama as

“All we can do, those of us in Washington, is help create a favorable climate in which workers can prosper, businesses can thrive, and our economy can grow," Obama said. "And that's exactly what I intend to achieve - soon.”

Now think about this for a moment. The stimulus package is intended to avert a depression and reverse the recessionary trend currently happening. This is important to remember as I continue.

25% of the Obama stimulus package will not take effect until after 2 years have passed. That’s not my opinion, that’s from the White House itself. Thus the package is not immediate.

The package includes several hundred billion dollars for environmental studies. That also takes an extended amount of time, and provides nothing to the economy. But it does make the global warming crowd feel all warm and fuzzy.

The package requires that:

“Much of the spending would be for items such as health care, jobless benefits, food stamps and other such programs.”

Jobless benefits do not create jobs, and therefore does not help the economy. Food stamps do not create jobs and therefore does not help the economy. Healthcare could create jobs, except that the money allocated for that is to supplement the coverage and cost for those that have lost a job. Again it does not create anything.

And a huge portion of the stimulus package is targeted to give the public money. But that’s not exactly true. First you have to make less than $75,000 (or $150,000 for those filing joint). Second you must receive a paycheck. Third you will receive a discount on the federal taxes you pay – up to the first $8150 of your annual salary.

That last one is important. It means that if you get paid once a month (as an example), and in month 2 or 3 your income exceeds $8150 you will no longer get the benefit. Of course the entire benefit only amounts to about $120 a month anyway. Which should be plenty of money to go out and buy hoards of new items. Which would create new jobs.

Except that $120 a month isn’t much at all. For most major purchases, like a new TV that will work with the HD changeover, cost far more than a mere $500 (which would take 4 months to save up to and is not immediate). Add to that equation the fact that the average American has $6000 in debt, and with tens of thousands of jobs being lost so far in this month alone most are more concerned with lowering debt as opposed to buying a new shiny something to compete with the Jones’ next door.

So again this is not creating jobs.

But there is some portion of the funds that will go to small businesses. Roughly $2.7 billion dollars. Or in other words, next to nothing. And larger businesses will get money as well, if they can prove they can create jobs through Government approved calculations that have been proven to be next to impossible to qualify for.

But do not fear. The Government will be funding jobs via public works. Like in the time of FDR. Except that just like then, if nothing is being done to create private sector jobs, which the above proves it is not, when the Government stops the funding there are no jobs for people to apply for.

In essence, this is a political polispeak attempt to look good. The long term effects are negligible at best. The quiet side provisions are definitely not popular. In virtually every aspect it fails to create jobs, or spur consumer confidence. It fails at its immediate and definitive purpose, stimulus.

If this passes, Democrats in Congress and President Obama will look good. For a while. And Republicans will have yet another thing that will be blamed on them. And when the built in failure of the plan becomes apparent, Republicans will be the first people selected to blame for their disagreement.

What is needed is a stimulus plan. Not the word stimulus, not the projection of sending the public checks that will need to be paid back at some point in the future. Least of all is the need for the Government to take care of everyone as if they were children, which this package does in abundance.

I don’t want the Government to give me what it thinks I need. I want the ability to earn enough to make my own choice about what I actually need, and if I do well what I want.

All politicians should reject the Obama stimulus package. Democrats won’t. Most Republicans will. And it will get passed because there are more than enough Democrats who seek political gain over their constituents well being.

Not the definition of change most voters expected, but it is change indeed.

Labels: Democratic Congress, President Barack Obama, stimulus package

Well I read something that was quite interesting the other day. It dealt with the questions of what we can expect from an Obama Administration. The article by Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris titled What we don't know about Obama points to some interesting thoughts.

So far we know that President Obama has ordered the detainee prison in Guantanamo Bay closed. He expects this to take one year, though the Bush Administration has spent at least 2 years seeking to move some 60 of the worst prisoners to any nation that will not just release them to Al Quida. This is part of his promised acts as a peace maker. That is in conflict with his plans for Afghanistan.

President Obama believes we can win in Afghanistan. He has stated that is the center of the war on terror. And that is where he wants to focus, then end our fight. But to do so is anything but being a peacemaker.

“Most military experts think a decisive win in Afghanistan — as opposed to a muddle-through strategy leading to a gradual withdrawal —will involve a major surge in troops and a willingness to tolerate high costs and high casualties.“

And speaking of war, there is Iraq. Which President Obama continues to move towards running from. The country is finally in some semblance of stability after our prolonged presence and several gaffs of the Bush Administration.

“But this remains an extremely volatile region that could erupt in new bloodshed. Will Obama still cling to a speedy pull-out if it means the country could implode?”

With anti-war hawks like Hillary Clinton in his Cabinet, and a majority of the Democratic Party looking for nothing less than absolute withdrawl what would President Obama do in that situation? Especially as he focuses our troops in Afghanistan thus escalating that conflict? Especially as military history states that a war involving multiple fronts usually end up with loss.

Also along these lines is the question of torture and interrogation. The first part of which is what to do with the detainees in Gitmo as I stated above. But moving forward is what to do about any future suspects we might encounter. They will not be able to be detained. Thus we must presume they will be interrogated in the field. But under what rules?

No matter what some may feel about the use of questionable techniques or outright torture there is one absolute truth. America gained needed information that has led to no more attacks on American soil. With many of the prior interrogation techniques now banned will we still be able to gain that information? Since we will not have detention areas to hold these suspects will we have an opportunity to learn the information that would prevent another major attack?

Then there is the question of the economy. An issue I have long has major problems with. The proposals made by the Obama Administration demand and create multi-trillion dollar deficits, which President Obama has said cannot be maintained long-term. But there is nothing in the proposals that would indicate that the deficits would be paid off in the next 4 years, or even 10.

The public is now becoming used to, and insistent on stimulus checks. If you ask the average American right now they believe that another stimulus check will be in the mail – which has been directly refuted by President Obama. And the poorer the person the more they are anxious for that check.

But that is a mere $850 billion dollars. If President Obama also goes forward with his healthcare plans, his expanded Government, and the declared spending (bailouts) for the economy the imbalance will be at least $1.6 – $2.1 trillion dollars when it’s all said and done (this year alone).

If President Obama plans to keep his budget in massive record deficit only for the short term then he must raise taxes sharply - for ALL Americans, cut entitlements drastically – including the new healthcare and social security, and reduce the military’s budget even as we have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. And a major deficit will still exist, with no guarantee that the economy will have improved.

And then there is a hot-button issue for me. Darfur. A subject that most politicians have avoided on all levels. America has yet to pass the laws sitting in Congress for 4 years that would prevent corporate or individual investment in the Sudan (Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act). This is similar to the laws passed that prevented funding Apartheid in the 1980’s. Yet even in the Democrat-led 110th Congress nothing has been done.

Will President Obama step up and use his extreme approval ratings to draw national attention to this genocide that has been ongoing for some 7 yeas now? Will he place financial bans, or even use military force to help save millions of non-American lives? Does his role as peacemaker end at the shores of America or does it include other parts of the world that have dire need and no strategic benefit to our nation?

What will President Obama do? No matter what he chooses he will piss off some part of America. But is he strong enough to piss off his main support – far-left liberals? They gave him the money to win. They rallied him over Clinton. They want some of the most extreme (I believe socialistic) changes to the Government. And if President Obama is to be an effective President for all of America, the far-left must be pissed off often and on major issues at times.

But that would bode poorly for his approval rating and chances at re-election. And virtually all the plans of the Obama Administration seem to require 2 terms to come to the proposed fruition. Is President Obama willing to risk that second term for a more balanced Government?

All serious issues, all serious repercussions. And all without any assurance of what will happen. Many wanted change, and in some form or another they are about to get it whether they like the outcome or not.

Labels: Afghanistan War, American economy, Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris, President Barack Obama, stimulus package, torture techniques

This is a response I made to a comment recieved from Logan Calder on my post America is still America. I felt this deserved to be heard on it own as well.

Logan,

I love involved comments that reflect when someone has read what I have written. Thank you. I will try to respond as clearly as I can.

The question of why so many, including myself, have said “I never thought I would see a black president” is pretty easy. It comes from the fact that for some 400 years African Americans have been in fact or in effect second class citizens. For those that are old enough, basically my mothers generation or older, to have lived in segregation the thought of a Black President is hard to conceive of when you can recall water fountains being segregated. For those in my generation, roughly 45 – 30, the memory of blatant discrimination provides the same disconnect. Perhaps the only generation that is oblivious to blatant daily discrimination would be those 20 and under now, though it does happen via television and movies everyday as I have often mentioned.

“Does this suggest that the country is not as racist as they believe??, or do you think that it is simply dramatic behavior?? or something else??.”

No the country is definitely as racist as it has always been in my life. The means by which that racism is enacted or portrayed has changed though.

The 200 incidents of nooses reported in 2007, an act that was unreported prior or since the Jena 6 issue hit the major news media – after 6 months of having been on-going, is one example. The singular consistency of police across the nation to overkill unarmed African American men, ONLY, and the fact that national news media avoids reporting this while relatively trivial news (Anna Nicole Smith's death, the Casey Anthony case, ect.) is followed every day for a year is another example.

But it must be said that President Obama was elected by a majority of all Americans. So there is a change in acceptance. I know of many people that voted for Obama because of retribution against President Bush (which is stupid since he wasn’t running). Others voted against the Republican ticket and the ridiculous adage that Democrats used to great effect – “a third term of President Bush”. And more than a few people were swept away with the thoughts of “change” (which is unspecific and dumb), an end to the Iraq and possibly Afghanistan wars, and/or receiving another stimulus check (which will not happen according to comments on the next stimulus package which I believe will fail miserably).

But for all the reasons Obama was elected there was a clear and steady voice of about 10% of the nation that vocally stated they would not vote for a Black President. If that is an extreme, which I think it is, then on the sliding scale to those that would vote for a Black President we must cross a percentage of Americans that might vote for a Black President under certain circumstances only, and those that would vote for a Black man because they felt peer and/or media pressure to do so, as well as those that did not vote for President Obama but were unwilling to be vocal about it. Put together that is a scary but illustrative number of Americans.

Still there is no question that the media made this election incredibly dramatic. The news media swooned over President Obama back in October of 2007 and never stopped to this point. It was so bad that the media had no choice but to admit their partisan manipulation of information about the election – though they waited until after the election to admit it.

So there are a number of factors that came together to get President Obama elected. Blind Democratic voting blocks, historical passion, a mood of change in the public attitude on key issues, an unpopular war, economic disappointments, a less eloquent and less attractive opponent, the age and health factors, news media bias, and the introduction of the internet as a new medium of great power. All of this combined led to President Obama’s win.

“1. Most white people that I talk to voted for Obama and felt, purely from a political standpoint that he was the best candidate.”

Most people in America right now expect another stimulus check from the Government, though it has been directly and repeatedly stated that it won’t happen. Most people hear and believe what they want to based on 30 second soundbites they watch on television. They infer policy from polispeak, and invariably get it wrong.

There are dozens of reasons to question President Obama’s politics and economic views. One of the most unrecognized is the fact that every economic policy President Obama advocates has been proven to not work in the past. These are not new economic plans, and they have never worked in the past – why do so many believe it will work in the future?

One great indicator of what business believes is the stock market. It is a forward indicator of the economy. While moved dramatically by emotion it is always based in the expectations of success or failure of economic plans.

Thus a positive expectation will cause a factual 10 point move to be a 100 point move, and conversely for negative indicators. The market has lost some 12% as President Obama has been revealing more of his economic intentions. That does not indicate the best political standpoint to me.

“2. I heard several times that “they would never let him win”…”they” obviously refers to white people. And since he won, and received massive support by whites, does this play into the original thought of racial paranoia??.”

Yes the “they” refers to Whites. And yes that is based on the legal, social, and media disparities that exist in America at this moment as well as the last several hundred years.

But again I refer back to what I have said before. The win by President Obama is a culmination of multiple factors. While race was one of those factors, the economy, the wars, and other immediate policies were of far more concern than race. Which is a positive in some respects, and very sad in others. Still there is a bit of paranoia in that as well, just as the scale reflects the racism of some in this nation.

“3. Is there a silent feeling of “wow, I didnt expect that…now what do we do” among blacks that are most likely to use race as an excuse for failure?”

Failure for a President has nothing to do with race. Which is an unfair statement because we have never before had the option to prove that point. But I believe that if President Obama is successful his race has nothing to do with that. Yet considering the nature of the media to emphasize negative racial stereotypes (when the media bothers to cover non-Whites at all) a failure of President Obama will likely be framed in Black and White. That is just an honest observation.

But I believe the nation as a whole is just now starting to ask the question that Democrats avoided throughout the Presidential campaign, ‘what does change mean?’

From a Black perspective, speaking for myself based on my views and those I have heard, there is no expectation of failure for President Obama in the Black community. And were he to fail, that is not about his race but his politics. Yet I again state, the media is more likely to create an issue of race motivating blame than any American. And once the media does so, the nation will likely be engulfed by the issue. Which ultimately helps the media make more money.

“4. Last, do you think that a large portion of blacks are silent about, but resent, the fact that Obama is half white. And could be just as easily (and fairly) called white…if the thought of calling him white is offensive, then you would be a racist, in my opinion.”

I personally could care less. There are millions of African Americans that are mixed with some other race or nationality. In fact most Americans whose family goes back to 1865 or earlier (as mine does) have a mixture of White and Black blood. It may not be spoken about, since much of that mixture from that time was the direct result of White slave owners committing rape – but not always as seems the case with Thomas Jeffesron, a rarity indeed. So President Obama’s heritage is about as important as that of President Bill Clinton, President Bush, President Roosevelt, President Lincoln, President Washington, and so on.

At the same time I must correct a thought you have. Race has always been a factor of what people see in this country. If you have dark skin you are presumed to be Black. You could be Hispanic, African, Arabic, Indian, and so on but you will be seen as Black at least initially. Just as every person from any Southeast Asian nation is considered generally from the same nation. It is an attitude that America has maintained since the days of slavery.

Any non-White is generally regarded as a lump of people of the same color. And because there is a visible difference there is a discrimination placed upon them, historically. Thus President Obama would and will never be called White, though he is a 50/50 mix. Because when those that care about such things look at him they see a Black man.

But I doubt many in the Black community care about his mixture. Because most African Americans can trace a fair amount of White ancestors to their family. There are always extreme views of course, but that is the exception and not the rule. But again the key here is the media.

The media has the unique ability to focus on the issues they wish, in a manner that emphasizes what they wish to convey. Right now the Casey Anthony case in Florida has been on national news programs for about a year. To my knowledge only Bill O’Reilly (for 4 minutes) and ABC News (for 30 seconds) have covered the Oscar Grant case. Exponentially less time has been focused on the 2 other Black men killed by police on New Year’s Day, while unarmed, one also on the ground and the other shot in the back 12 times.

Of just these 4 items of news, which do you believe has a greater impact on the society, and make a more clear statement about law enforcement? What is more worthy of coverage; the abuse of power by police on a seemingly national level or the question of what one deranged mother might have done to her own child that has no effect on anyone else in the nation?

Thus I expect that if the question of how African Americans feel about President Obama’s lineage comes up, it will be due to the media. The answer will reflect what they wish to promote. It will likely have nothing to do with what the majority of African Americans believe. Though it will be promoted as if the Black community was speaking in a consensus. Something that I have not seen since the Civil Rights Movement, other than the election of President Obama.

I hope I have covered all your questions. If not please do let me know.

Labels: 2008 election, African Americans, Iraq War, news media, Oscar Grant, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, race in America, race relations

Well it has to be said by someone. I know the hate mail will flow.

I understand, and am gleeful, about the history being made as President Obama becomes the first Black man that is President of the United States. It is a moment that I never expected in my lifetime.

That said, I have to wonder and comment on the way the media and many people are treating this as if the world has instantly changed. It is as if suddenly every wrong in America has been wiped away. Or so the media would like many to believe.

I recall a recent television commercial on BET that I caught as I was flipping channels. It had a little girl trying to watch the inauguration, but was far too short to see over the crowd. Then Dr. Martin Luther King comes and lifts up the girl so she can watch the Oath of Office. The commercial ends with the words, The Dream Achieved.

Hogwash. The television commercial is inspirational, but the message is false. President Obama is not the fulfillment of the dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King, and to suggest as such belittles what he strived for. The Civil Rights Movement was not about just gaining political stature, or a title. It was about the understanding of the fundamental rights of equality that Government and society needs to recognize.

Yes, President Obama is one aspect of that realization. But that does not mean America has reached a point of equality. Oscar Grant was murdered after Obama was elected. Millions of African Americans are drop-outs, and single parents. The pay rates of African Americans still lags that of White peers. The stereotypes of African Americans being criminals and/or violent still permeates music, television and movies (when we have the chance to be seen) by and large. Drugs are still allowed to enter Black and poor communities. The dream is not achieved.

President Obama is just one man. He has entered one position, powerful as it is. And it is worthy of acclaim and celebration. But we should not distract ourselves from the reality that exists before, during and after this moment.

Racism and prejudice still exists in America. It is part of the legal system at every level. It still unbalances the opportunities African Americans (and all other 'minorities') experience in this nation.

10% of this nation vocally stated that they would not accept a non-White president. That is huge. Who knows how many were unwilling to make that same statement publicly. Obviously not enough to prevent President Obama's election, but far more than enough to put me at unease.

There is still only 1 African American in the Senate, a mere handful in the House of Representatives. There are few Governors and Mayors that are African American, or just non-White. There are far less than 1% of major CEO's that are 'minorities'. Even in the far-left, politically highly liberal, halls and studios of Hollywood there is barely more than a scattering of non-Whites in front of or behind the cameras.

It took 14 days for the ex-cop who murdered Oscar Grant in cold blood to be arrested. Protestors of the inaction of police in Oakland were arrested the day of protests. National news media coverage of the murder spoke only to the riots and lawsuit the murder provoked. And virtually nothing was said of other acts of police abuse in the nation at the start of the new year.





The dream has not been achieved, yet.

I am exuberant about President Obama's accomplishment. But the world has not changed this second. Racism has not died. Prejudice has not faded away. The ills and wrongs of this nation have not been wiped clean. The slate is still filled.

Rejoice today because it is a day worthy of celebration. But let us not be distracted from the truth that is daily life. President Obama may change many things, but it won't be tomorrow. He has become a symbol, but action still needs to be taken. Millions will remember this day, but it is only one day.

President Obama is not THE answer. He is not THE only change. He is one part of a huge goal that was hoped for by millions of Americans, including Dr. Martin Luther King. But he is not the end of the road nor the ultimate answer to the challenges before us. The dream is still a dream. And we must still strive to make it a reality.

But thankfully we are one step and one day closer to that reality. Let's just not lose focus.

Labels: African Americans, Congress, Hollywood, news media, Oscar Grant, President Barack Obama, race in America

So now President Obama seems to be interested in providing up to $100 billion for those in foreclosure or about to be. It's a really great gesture. It will surely help his approval rating. And it will help guarantee that he receives the full $850 billion he has wanted for the Democrat proposed stimulus plan.

But I am opposed to this. Not because I don't want people to keep their homes. But because this is a terrible idea.

First there are the homeowners who are not in foreclosure. Those of us that are doing everything we can to maintain our homes are at a disadvantage. We get nothing from the proposed stimulus except the $120 a month that has been stated. Which is little to nothing compared to the cost of a mortgage, and raising a family, while trying to save enough money to ensure that if we lose our jobs we have something as a cushion.

In fact, it seems almost beneficial to allow your home to go into foreclosure these days. The Government is so busy trying to ensure you cannot lose your home that they are basically encouraging people to do so. You can negotiate a lower interest rate, defer payments, extend the life of a mortgage, remove interest, and soon there will be payments from the Government to subsidize your home. Given all that, why the hell is it worth struggling to stay out of foreclosure?

Second, in spending money on the foreclosures it is that much less money spent on the economy. Given I think the stimulus plan is as much of a waste as the Bush stimulus plan, basically a political look good tool or polispeak for the masses. But if spending money is the plan to turn the economy around, why dilute that plan?

In effect the average American will be paying back, at some point in the future via taxes, the money they receive + the money given to homes that are not their own + money given to businesses that made bad business decisions. And that is just the looking forward money (and does not include his new spending for new Government programs). The Government has already obligated us to pay back previous money received + several bank bailouts (which did nothing to improve the stock market and retirement accounts) + auto industry money + bailing out an insurance giant. All while inflation is creeping higher.

And none of the money going to any business or institution has any guarantee of repayment. Nor if there were repayment, any way planned of how that money would be assessed. The money could be used to fund pet politician projects (like ACORN was initially set to receive) or some other Government inspired spending spree. We don't know.

Which says nothing of the fact that the Government has no idea how the money will be spent, or where it is spent. Billions are unaccounted for at this moment, and the Obama Adminsitration has stated it intends to add tens of billions more into the pot with little better knowledge than before. Unless you believe that Congress got a lot smarter since the elections in November. The majority of politicians that were there before are still there. Like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who couldn't figure out what was happening in the economy until after the problems hit the news. And they head financial oversight committees, still. Think they are any smarter or more adept than 3 months ago?

But again on the foreclosures. I have enough trouble paying my mortgage, my household expenses, taxes, and preparing for higher corporate taxes. It's hard enough to do all that in an economy that is just flat, and this is anything but. Now the Obama Administration believes I should add on someone else's house? Which I will never get a benefit from.

That's a hard sell to me. Probably why I did not vote for President Obama. These are no surprises. But they are as bad a set of decisions as I expected them to be. This is not going to help the economy, though I expect it to temporarily help the approval ratings of Congress (which needs it badly).

I don't entirely blame President Obama though. This entire stimulus plan was the idea of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She has been fighting for this for months, increasing the amount each month as she went along. Pelosi has had the distinction of being the worst Speaker of the House, with a Congress of the lowest approval rating, that accomplished the least things, at a higher cost, than I believe any other Congress has done in 111 sessions. That's like betting on the horse that went lame and was pulled from the race. Obama made the bet so he gets that blame, but Pelosi made the horse lame and that's on her all the way.

Spending tens of billions on foreclosures sounds nice, but that's all it is. Polispeak. It is almost entirely probable that it will have no effect except a long-term negative. In fact it may speed up the downward trend President Obama was elected to fix. But it's going to happen, so be prepared.

Labels: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Congress, corporate taxes, Nancy Pelosi, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House

Ah the joy of politics. There is nothing like it. Only in politics can a person give a promise to millions of people, publicly, and then get a promotion when they fail miserably to follow thru. Only in politics can promises on the campaign trail be reversed 180 degrees once elected. Only in politics can a politician accept money that most would call influencing and still become one of the most powerful people in the free world.

It's called polispeak, at least by me. The act of saying and doing anything necessary to bolster a politicians power base and rise in the ranks while deluding the public. And there are plenty of politicians in office right now that are masters of this.

Barney Frank is one such politician. He adeptly changed his position on the mortgage crisis several times, matching the prevailing wind of public sentiment well enough to be untouched politically. How else could a politician say on tape that real problems don't exist and that he is on top of all the factors involved, then have all those problems explode in his face, and yet still maintain his elected position. Polispeak. Just blame everyone else and ignore what you have said before.

And another favorite is Senator Clinton. She has now become Secretary of State. Which is a joke. She has fought and won the ability to receive, via the William J. Clinton Foundation, tens of millions in donations from foreign Governments while she holds this post. She previously failed on promises to her Upstate New York constituents, promising to bring in 200,000 jobs and losing over 30,000 instead. She has reversed her position on illegal immigration so fast that only video of her conversation makes it possible to see how fast she polispoke (3 positions in 2 minutes at the same Primary debate, and in the same question). And she negotiated herself out of millions in debt (from her presidency run) and into a promotion while maintaining her bid for a future run at the Presidency and ignoring the racial comments she made in the campaign.

But let us not forget the polispeak of President Obama. He successful convinced the nation that he is not a far-left liberal, though his voting record is explicit in making that clear. He reversed his position on gay marriage. He avoided the weight of his political past, particularly his direct and close association with an admitted unrepentant terrorist, with a mere sentence. He has altered his positions somewhat on Iraq, the economy, and several other issues - even before getting sworn in. And his initial approval rating looks to be through the roof.

Politics is a unique field. And for those adept at polispeak it is the only place to be. It's even better than being a lawyer. Amazing.

Labels: Barney Frank, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State, Senator Clinton

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

"A jump in unemployment sent stocks sharply lower Friday as investors feared that Americans won't soon deviate from their tightened budgets."

That means that someone thought consumers would go back to spending money, or realistically increasing debt, because the new year started? Or they thought that the $120 a month less in taxes (for only 4 months) President Obama has proposed was going to spur new home purchases? At the same time that nearly every industry in the nation is slashing jobs?

It must be great in the world that some of these economists live in.

We have lost the most jobs in this nation since 1945. That's at the end of WWII, when we scaled back from the massive military supply we needed for the war. And I believe more people had more savings and less debt than today - even adjusting for inflation. And the Government had none of the debt we have today, or will soon have even more of if Congress and President Obama get to spend as they plan on doing.

How could anyone look at the 2nd half of 2008 and not expect consumer spending to continue downwards. To expect the stock market to continue in the bear market that it's been in for months now. I mean what did they expect, President Obama would smile and the world would just step up and buy stocks?

President Obama is a Liberal Democrat. He has said from day one that he will increase the deficit, spending more money than ever before. He has made it explicitly clear that he intends to get even more money from fewer sources, business and the higher incomes. What exactly counts as higher income keeps changing, and getting smaller. And business really loves to have to pay more money as sales shrink.

Let's not forget that with the mismanagement of the Fed and the Treasury (neither of which is President Obama's fault - given) we have wasted billions of bailout dollars, have a line of industries waiting for their turn at the free money ATM called Government, and inflation is the one word no one wants to talk about. And inflation will be the one thing that really kicks everyone's ass.

Of course President Obama will say that the sky is falling tomorrow if he doesn't get to give away all our money. That's polispeak, meaning that he wants to look good at trying something that can't work so he has some political clout before it all falls apart. Then he can point backwards in time and blame everything that fails in his plan on President Bush. Politics as usual.

Of course these "old politics", that President Obama promised to banish, are very good at keeping political clout but horrendous for low wage earners and small business. The stock market knows this. That's why its a bear market. And as we approach the inauguration, I expect even more selling. I mean why have an investment when the taxes on it will cost more than you expect to make in the next 2 or 5 years.

As a stockbroker I learned to look for capitulation in the market. That emotional point when people just give up. That's when smart money jumps in and buys. Except that the emotional selling all happened in September and October. Since the election smart money is selling. And that means things are really going to get worse.

Until there is a reason to buy stocks, the market will continue to slowly slide down. Never in just a straight line, but trend down it will. The Democrat-led Congress will authorize spending in new programs that will not help any one get a job or start a business. The President will come up with plans on how the Government can take care of everyone, while being in every pocket deeper than before. And $1.2 trillion dollars in debt will look like a target to strive for in coming years.

I've said it before and I will again, a Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid Congress with the most Liberal Democratic President in decades equates to double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, rock bottom consumer confidence, and business bankruptcies all not seen since the Carter Adminsitration - if we are lucky to have it that good.

So who is surprised? Not me.

Labels: American economy, bear market, Congress, credit crisis, Harry Reid, inflation, Nancy Pelosi, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, stockbroker

Now that we have entered 2009, the time for details has begun. President Obama has now stated that he intends to make 40% of the proposed stimulus plan, that was championed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from $50 billion to its now $800 billion level, business tax-cuts. That is the first logical and reasonable thing I've heard about this plan since its inception.

Some $300 billion dollars will target businesses by cutting taxes on new workers hired and accelerated depreciation among other thoughts. The tax break from hiring new employees is critical. Tax on employees is one factor that cannot be controlled by an owner and is devastating to the bottom line. If this proposal, which is short-term, could be made more substantial - by being proposed long-term or matched by a cut in corporate taxes - it will have a definite impact on the economy. But that is not thinking like a liberal Democrat.

If President Obama goes to his consistent style of thought, and Speaker Pelosi is able to forge ahead with her plans, we will see more of the compartmentalized thinking that dominated the election speeches. That is the thought that there is no connection of one economic plan with any other part, nor that new deficit widening spending or raising taxes might counter any other stimulus proposed. Listening to the Democratic leaders one would believe that each of these things are isolated and do not interact, but in the real world they always do.

Thus if corporate taxes are raised, any gains created from a tax break on new employees will evaporate and those new hires will quickly become unemployed again. But it will buy the politicians a few months of back-patting on the lowering of unemployment.

But the majority of the new stimulus plan is still solidly in the realm of polispeak. Only in that realm is the thought that $500 for singles and $1000 for a family able to turn around a mortgage crisis, credit crunch, and shrinking economy.

The last stimulus plan, which was completely ineffective, came about as a direct payment of money from the Government to the public - which will be repaid in taxes at a later date. That money was used by the majority of Americans to stave off mortgage default and pay down on debt. This time President Obama believes that by directly cutting payroll taxes for 4 months it will have a bigger impact. Which is perhaps even more dream-like an expectation.

That equates to around $120 per month, or $240 for families -

"The $500 tax credit would apply to the first $8,100 of wages, meaning a worker who earns $24,400 a year and is paid twice a month would get about $60 extra per paycheck for four months."

While that is not insignificant, it is not a factor either. If the average person in America has $6,000 in debt currently, and basic monthly costs of some $1500 to live the extra money is 1 night out, or 2% payment on the debt not including interest, or 1 month of cell phone service. Which seems most likely for a person to do?

From what I have heard across the nation a free month of phone service, or paying down on the auto insurance, or electric bill, or catching up with the cable bill, or having a bit of extra food, or paying on the car loan, or replacing clothing are higher priorities than going out for drinks and a dinner. Sure some may buy an new video game, but they may well be doing so because they will be losing cable and thus the game is their only entertainment.

The fact is that stimulus plans that depend on creating money to give to the public, that will need to be paid back via taxes, will never work. Unless the nation were to get $6,000 per person it will never work. The current individual debt and the interest on that debt is too high. And any amount below the current debt load is too small to invest in anything - even if consumer confidence were there.

This stimulus plan is a failure just as much as the one proposed by the Bush Administration was. There is no improvement. There is no greater gain. Money given to the public will garner no positive lasting effect in the economy any more than the last one did. The only thing that will happen is the polispeak will be positive for a time. Great for politicians, but ultimately bad for the public.

If this stimulus were to be a real fix, corporate taxes would be reduced, new employees would create a tax break, accelerated depreciation would be tied to new equipment purchases, and Government would not be directly involved in the daily actions of private business. But that too is a pipe dream. Just like watching the Dow go above 9000 any time soon.

Labels: corporate taxes, Nancy Pelosi, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, President Bush, stimulus package

Last year I was looking at the gold markets and speculated that gold would surge along with several of the gold stocks. On December 6, 2007 I rebuffed the claims of Goldman Sachs when they stated to sell gold. At the time the spot price was $855.

In January of 2008 I pointed out a few gold stocks:

• Streettrack Gold Trust
  
• Barrick Gold Corp.
  
• Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd.
  
• Goldcorp Inc
  
• Western Goldfields Inc
  
• Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd
  
• Alamos Gold Inc
  
• Anatolia Minerals Development Ltd
  
• European Goldfields Ltd
  

- each of which was soaring. At the same time I was pointing out my belief of what would happen to gold spot prices, oil, and the Dow Jones Index.

"All stock markets, all financial markets, move on emotion first. That’s given. And few things are more emotional that 1.25 basis point moves by the Fed in a week. But fundamental facts of the markets always come to fore and correct the emotion. To me, $1000 gold, and higher gold stocks across the world, is as fundamentally sound today as when I discussed it earlier this month and in December of 2007."

Which lead me to state

"Now I will go one step better. If supply remains constrained, as we can see is likely, and the U.S. economy has the mild recession now being stated by the Federal Reserve. If oil production is cut, in combination with the recent U.S. refinery accident that has placed pressure on capacity, and Senator Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States. If all those actions occur, which seem 80% probable to me at this time, then I believe that gold spot prices in excess of $1125 are possible by the end of this year. Commensurate with this move should be gains among the gold mining stocks across the world."

How close did I get? $1035. Close enough for me and many others. And then gold drifted down. The power outages in South Africa were resolved, oil prices peaked and then dropped. The world was consumed with the problems of the mortgage bailout and then the credit crisis. Major financial institutions failed and/or were on the brink of collapse as politicians (like Barney Frank), The Fed, and the Secretary of Treasury all scurried around like rats on a sinking ship.

Now we have entered 2009 with several important facts known. Interest rates are at all-time lows, the mortgage crisis has yet to be abated, oil is on the rise again - albeit from lower levels than seen in recent years. The American economy is leading the world into a depression, and at our helm is a new inexperienced highly liberal Democrat. None of these things are positives.

The American Government is about to spend even more money than all of 2008 combined, with a Democrat-led Congress that has no desire to reign in the Democrat President. Both his policies as stated and his indicated primary goals are wastes of money on a grand scale few countries could ever command as their GDP.

Thus we are seeing gold sit at $879, the Dow at 9034. That's just about 2000 points lower than my initial expectations for 2008, but above the lows of the year - barely. What will happen next?

In a move much like what was seen in 2008 we will see gold and gold stocks rise. I again call for gold spot prices to hit $1125, with gold stocks reaching new 52 week highs. This will likely be coupled with a reduction in oil production, increases in crude oil prices (to a high of around $105 a barrel again), an ethanol glut, higher energy costs, increase home losses, the failure of more financial institutions, the bankruptcy of at least 1 major auto company, and higher unemployment.

The new stimulus plan envisioned by President Obama, some $850 billion dollars (about 5x the Bush stimulus), will stabilize investor fears and consumer confidence for 1 quarter. Then the resulting fact that most of the money was spent on mortgages, credit cards, bills, or placed into bank accounts and mattresses will be seen. And the economy will drop again. The stock market will drop to about 7600 - as I stated in 2008. The bear will roar.

Gold and gold stocks will be one of a few places investors and those that fear financial institutions will run to. Crude oil will be another. Demand will outweigh supply, and emotion will propel prices ahead of that. For 9 months of the year the economy will be abysmal.

If I am as correct as I was in 2008, then my expectation for gold will be in excess of 90% correct. In terms of the Dow I am being overly generous, if my past predictions are accurate. And Crude oil will likely exceed and then under-perform my belief.

While many will feel my thoughts are overstated, as they did and were partially correct in 2008, I believe that the overall outlook is less stable than in 2008. Politics internationally are as bad with Israel and Palestine trading rockets and Iran moving forward on creating nuclear weapons. Fewer banks are making loans, and fewer people and businesses are qualified to get them. Democratic spending is looking to increase the national debt to levels unseen, without any real expectation of improvement. Government interference with private business is greater than ever before - with the Government consistently proving it has no clue on how to run anything.

It is quite early in the new year. Our new President has yet to be sworn in. Much in the world is in flux. So I hope to be wrong, I hope very wrong, in what I am predicting. But I believe that at the end of this new year I will be no less than 60% correct. How you act on that is up to you.

Labels: American economy, bear market, Congress, crude oil, Dow Jones Index, gold spot prices, mortgage crisis, President Barack Obama, stimulus package

In general Presidents have their scandals some time after they have taken the Oath of Office, but I find it odd the number of things being thrown at President Obama before we have even gotten into the new year. I can't recall another President that has ever been faced with so many issues, before day 1.

Part of these problems are issues that come from the departing Administration. President Bush has left a minefield of economic missteps that need to be hurdled on day 1 running. The continuing requests of bailouts from various industries, and Congress' far to eager shoveling of public funds to them adds to that burden. And lest we forget, there are people out in the world that just want to see America burn, regardless of who is at the helm.

But there are a great many other issues that stem directly from President Obama, his Administration selection, and/or his past. Conflicts with Vice President Biden are anticipated, as is head-butting with Secretary of State Clinton. Rahm Emanuel is about as partisan as a skunk smells sweet, and I won't even get into the Mark Rich pardon fiasco.

Bill Ayers is regurgitating his old books that dote on a revised version of history that makes him and other terrorists seem nicer in retrospect. And he is starting to churn out more books to capitalize on the favor he provided President Obama by introducing him to politics in Chicago.

Now Gov. Rod Blagojevich is causing his own stink. So far it does not track back to President Obama, and if he is to be effective at all it must not. It's one thing to have Gov. Blagojevich sell the open Senate seat to the highest bidder, but if Tony Rezco is connected to the shadier dealings the Governor has made in the past, President Obama is sure to be dragged through that mud.

And long-time supporter Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is about to learn the harshness of the media and Illinois politics under the bright national lights. I believe he may be innocent, as everything revealed so far shows no direct connection. But noting politicians of both Party's these days I wouldn't go to Las Vegas and make a bet on it.

In the past the media at least waited a little while before sniffing at the heels of a President. And it was the media's major help (or lack of investigation if you prefer) that fueled the win President Obama enjoyed. You would think they would give him the same kind of leeway they gave President Clinton and Hillary with Whitewater and the numerous other allegations (women) that dogged his Presidency [at least at first].

President Obama was elected under the banner of change. A change of entrenched politicians that do politics in the old-fashioned way - which has led to an Administration that is comprised of the people he rallied against. A change in the policies that we have followed for some time - to which we have proposals to increase the direct ownership and intervention of Government in private business at unprecedented levels. A change in taxation, leaning on the undefined rich more and bashing the oil industry - none of which will change at all. And most of all a change from a President that is seen as having interests opposed to the public at large - and we have gotten a look to the past and political influences of President Obama that could be far darker than what we have had before.

We have all this, and the Oath of Office is still over a month away. Somebody needs to give the man a little slack. Because he never championed, nor wanted, the media to change the way it attacks the President. He deserves the chance to prove himself, either the dream some believe him to be or the mistake others are stuck with.

Labels: Bill Ayers, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Jesse Jackson jr, news media, President Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Secretary of State Clinton, Vice President Biden

Recently I saw a headline that I just could not help but stop to read. It stated Obama says he won't be smoking in White House

Why does that matter? Because President Obama is a smoker. Just like millions of other Americans. And it was kept so quiet you would have thought it was a national secret. You would be amazed by the number of people I have spoken to during the Democratic Primaries and since that have no idea President Obama smokes.

Not that it should be a big deal. He is in good health, exercises, eats well and is relatively young. He has been smoking for 20 years now. And it's political ramifications are really meaningless.

Yet it seems to be a big deal somehow. And I feel that is because these days smokers are treated as if they are second-class citizens.

We have all heard the horror story figures and stats that are proclaimed by anti-smoking groups. Some might even know that many of these stats are made up or based on false figures from the Government. That does not make smoking something worth doing, but it makes it far from the plague some would like others to think.

President Obama smoking does not mean the nation will fail to operate properly. He would not be the first, and very likely not the last, President that smokes.

But think about this. The White house is the home of the President. And in his own home, the President is not free to make a decision on how to live his own life. He can have a bowling alley installed, or a movie theater. he could get a pool or virtually anything he wishes in the White House, but he can't have a cigarette without breaking the law.

The President is not free enough to do as he pleases behind his own closed doors. Some in California love that though. Notably those that would ban smoking in your own home, as was attempted earlier this year. But I find it a terrible insult to personal freedom.

Just as smoking has been banned in bars and other public places across the nation, it is banned in the private residence of the symbol of American freedom. That's not a positive statement. Nor is the fact that he has had to hide his smoking from the public.

Smoking is not the healthiest habit. Neither is eating McDonald's every day. But as adults and consumers we have the freedom to make that choice. And nothing should prevent anyone from such a choice in their own home. To do so is tantamount to restricting the television you can see, the movies that are made, the books that can be in a library and so on.

Freedom is only free if it allows choice, not Government mandate. If President Obama chooses to quit smoking it should not be a political mandate, nor based on public polling and political gain. And if he chooses not to quit, he should be free to do that as well. A restriction on his personal freedom, in an act that is legal and enjoyed by tens of millions of Americans, is a restriction on freedom in America.

Health nuts may not like that, but that is their freedom to express that thought. But if we can restrict the symbol of freedom personified in the Office of the President, the act of freedom can be restricted on anyone. It's just a thought you might want to consider.

Labels: California, President Barack Obama, smoking ban, White House

Ok, so is it just me or has anyone else noticed the way the Democrats are rewarding each other? President-elect Obama took the Democratic Primaries, and to reward Senator Hillary Clinton for not fighting out the DNC he gave her the Secretary of State position.

In doing so he swallowed all of the comments of former President Bill Clinton - most regarding President Obama as secondary and racially questionable. He has effectively ignored all the attempts of the Clinton campaign to paint him as a Muslim, and drug dealer. And he has taken the most ambitious and willing -to-do-anything political viper into his cabinet.

All Senator Clinton had to do was make a complete political 180-degree turn around on what she had spent months and millions of dollars stating. Not that such actions are unusual for her.

And the public got a Secretary of State that derives part of her income from monies donated to charities she and her husband run, from countries what have dubious at best relations with the U.S. We received a Secretary of State that was willing to have a major fundraiser that was a known fugitive from the law, and tried to keep the money he provided, which was known to be stolen.

President-elect Obama has just rewarded Gov. Richardson with a Secretary of Commerce position. Gov. Richardson was the first to back Obama and run from the Clinton campaign. For such political shrewedness it was expected he would get the State position. But Latinos are not as important as donor money, 18 million supporters, and a backdoor deal (made just after Hillary conceded).

One of the things that has really gone unmentioned is Representative Charles Rangel. He was the key Democrat that push Senator Clinton into conceding the Democratic Primary. He is known as a staunch Clintonite, so his doing so made him a visible example.

Shortly after blasting Hillary (politically) it was found that Representative Rangel had homes in the Dominican Republic that he paid no tax on, that he had several rent-subsidized apartments in new York City though he claims Washington DC as his residence. Add to that the fact he is now also being investigated for receiving $1 million in donations to his Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service from the CEO of Nabors Industries after he got them a tax break.

Most of his tax and residence issues all existed for years. And not a single person in Congress ever made not of this. The IRS never questioned it. Everyone in politics were completely fine with his actions, until he pissed of Hillary Clinton.

So what are we seeing in the Obama Administration?

Old politics in the embodiment of past figures from the Clinton Administration. Partisan politics in the number and degree of down-the-line Democrat political figures. People (Like Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton) that are known for their spiteful actions to those that oppose their views. People that are willing to accept funds and favors from anyone that can advance their political goals. People that will seemingly say anything, and reverse their publicly stated opinions at the drop of a hat, for political favor.

And we have an Administration that is filled with crossed political agendas. Vice President-elect Biden opposed President-elect Obama on several foreign policy and economic views - which he reportedly believes in and wants to support. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opposes President Obama on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, and a number of goals that she has sworn repeatedly to uphold for her 18 million voters. And Secretary of Commerce Richardson is not without his disputes and objectives.

This is an Administration that was primarily loyal to the Clinton's, hates any policy that is not left-wing liberal, blindly pro-Democrat, with little to no positive experience with economic issues. Several of the key figures all have opposing and partisan agendas - none of which match the stated goals of President Obama.

The in-fighting that will occur will be unmatched by any Administration I can recall in my lifetime. And we the people will get the rewarding opportunity to watch this all unfold via television and blogs. The only price of admission will be the economy at large and the national debt. Not too big a price some might say.

And for those that oppose any part of this, this Administration has enough venom to kill a African Black Mamba. Just ask Rep. Rangel. Too bad Iran, Al Quida, Indian extremists, Russian expansionists, OPEC, the stock market, NATO and many others could give a damn less about American internal political oneupmanship.

Labels: American politics, Congressman Charles Rangel, Democratic Party, Gov. Bill Richardson, Obama Administration, President Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Senator Hillary Clinton, Vice President Biden

Finally we have seen President-elect Obama stick by a campaign promise. It took long enough. I am of course referring to the nomination of the Treasury Secretary position today. Tim Geithner will replace Paulson and Larry Summers will lead the National Economic Council, which is a positive to a degree.

I had remarked a few days ago that President-elect Obama has broken several campaign promises since the election. One of the most troubling to me was the delay he placed in selecting a Treasury Secretary. That problem has now been allieved to a degree. But by no means should the public think that Wall Street is in love with this selection (the Dow dropped 123 points from 323 up at the start of his speech today to 200 points by the end).

While removing Bernanke and Paulson are important moves, who replaces them is important. And the positive move in the early trading today is not a signal of the confidence of those moves but the response to Citigroup being bailed out again. It is the stabilizing action to world markets that the Dow reflects. The reaction to the economic team is just starting to settle in.

Why am I not totally enthused? Well first off, the most important selection to the Obama Administration is the Treasury Secretary. By naming a new face the markets can calm since they are aware of someone being in place. Uncertainty on that position is a negative for the market. The delay has helped to drag the markets lower.

The other factor is the fact that Larry Summers was in charge once before. Under the Clinton Administration from 1999 until 2001. Those dates should be a lightning bolt for those familiar with the market. It is that time where the stock market peaked and began the internet bubble implosion. And Summers let it happen.

The Clinton Administration was a beacon of inaction in the face of pressing need. There is no doubt that all who served were qualified, just as there is no doubt that they failed to act. I am not saying that the internet bubble was preventable, but I am saying the degree and manner in which it fell apart could have been dealt with better. So having a key figure that allowed massive devastation, which lasted for years beyond the initial meltdown, does not make me feel much better. Though I think it’s hard to screw up as much as Paulson has.

Adding to my concern is the incredible number of former Clintonites in the new Administration. It is as if President-elect Obama is reaching into the past because he hopes to repeat the luck of the last Democratic President. And such an opinion is silly at best.

The Clinton Presidency was a symbol or preservation. They did little to change the economic path the nation was on, which allowed things to prosper. And because little maintenance was done what prospered rotted as well. Now we get many of the same people picking up in a worse economic environment. That means they will either shine brightly, or all be replaced within a year.

Considering that President-elect Obama is not going to rush into raising taxes (a promise he implied would not be altered right up to election day) there is a positive out there. But that is sullied by the prospect of a now $500 - $700 billion stimulus plan. My belief is that is akin to burning the money in front of the NYSE. I hope to be proven wrong.

Looking at the new National Economic Council director, his connection to Robert Rubin and thus Citigroup, and his performance in the past I have slightly more confidence now than with Paulson and Bernanke. But that is not enough to alter my opinion of what will happen. I have predicted that the market will drop on inauguration day, by 500 points. I stand by that thought. I have said that I believe the Dow will hit 7600 in the 1st quarter of 2009. I reconfirm that outcome. And I have stated that I believe the Obama Administration will lead the nation into a depression – which I again state.

I do not say these things with cheer. I desperately hope to be proven wrong. I will be happy to admit my mistake if the stock market were to run, and the economy gain its legs. But that would be no different than looking at Hope in Pandora’s Box and assuming it was a gem of redemption among pestilence.

Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams once told me to prepare for the worst to survive the best, and I have lived by that as a stock broker and business owner. Improvise, adapt, and overcome a motto for more than just Marines. I hope both of these thoughts are paramount in the minds of the Obama Administration even though none I am aware of have ever served in the military.

Labels: Citigroup, Clinton Administration, internet bubble, Larry Summers, National Economic Council, President Barack Obama, Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary

The Presidential election is now 14 days over, and President Obama has already violated several campaign promises. Can you imagine what things will be like in 2 years? I realize that a multitude of Obama fans are getting rabid over that statement so I will make it clear that this is not an opinion, but factual.

President Obama ran his election campaign on a couple of basic concepts. While most of his promises were very vague it was clear that he promised change, and exit from Iraq, and a new style of politics in Washington D.C. Of course the first item on the list, change, was both abut as vague as you can get, and at the same time the most blitheringly stupid thing to promise since President Bush was not up for re-election.

But when it comes to change it seems that President Obama really meant reliving the past. Like much of the Democratic rhetoric over the election the point was to go backwards in time. Anything that reflected or brought back memories of the Clinton Administration was a positive. Thus he has been very busy in filling positions in his new Administration with ‘old politics’ politicians from the Clinton Administration, plus a few friends from Chicago.

How this is a new way of doing politics is beyond me. Other than perhaps the fact that since Congress is Democrat-led, and thus capable of passing almost any liberal platform it wishes, he will push his agenda forward no matter what Conservative think. Of course that is also entirely partisan, blindly following Party dogma, and violates his pledge to work in a bi-partisan manner. But maybe he meant that bi-partisan as in the Executive and Legislative branches working together. It’s a stretch, which is the closest we can get so far.

President Obama was very clear that he was against fighting in Iraq. He made it absolutely clear that he will retreat from Iraq and bring America’s soldiers home. His plan was for an organized retreat, over several months. This would allow opposition forces plenty of time to gather their strength and bide their time. This plan took hold of the Iraqi government, and is currently being debated in that nation. The deal on the table will force American combat troops out of Iraq just in time for the nomination of the next election cycle.

But what is important there is the word combat. Because the deal in hand will do what President Obama wrongly misinformed the public Senator McCain wanted to do. It will provide America with base(s) for land, sea, and air troops in Iraq for 10 years.

That wouldn’t be a big deal, except that President Obama campaigned to remove all troops from Iraq and not staying in Iraq in any form (until he was embarrassed to admit that was a bad idea). But after correcting his initial plan he campaigned with careful wording to imply he was still going to remove all the troops. And if anyone thinks that President Obama did not help shape, and is currently involved with, this Iraqi proposal they don’t understand international politics – in my opinion.

So new politics are out, as is leaving Iraq. And change was just for anyone too blinded to notice the obvious. But wait, there more.

As a bonus there is the economy. President Obama was elected on this basis more than any other factor according to polls by just about everyone. Because the economy needs help, and President Obama was going to make a change. Even though he could not be bothered to be involved in the discussions of the single largest economic policy act in over 2 generations – the mortgage bailout – without having to be called to discussions like a truant schoolboy.

But this massive issue is one that President Obama promised to be on top of. It was issue number one, alongside a new stimulus plan (cost between $300 and $500 billion in money that doesn’t exist). And how has President Obama reacted for the first goal in his Presidency? He’s avoided it.

President Obama could help calm the markets with an announcement of who he is considering for Treasury Secretary. But he hasn’t. He’s worked on several other positions, none as vital to the nation as who is going to be in charge of some $350 billion from the mortgage bailout, plus at least $25 billion for the auto industry, and who knows what else. And people wonder why the stock market is jumpy.

I have to say that this does not bode well for President Obama. Especially since he is looking to compound his Presidency with multiple problems. That would be VP Biden, and now a potential Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And it’s Mrs. Clinton that makes me really laugh.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that the donors to the Clinton organizations are unknown and potentially a deal-breaker. Ties to foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others look bad. Not to mention favors made to people like Mark Rich. But that is being dealt with as we speak, with a couple hundred of the donors being revealed – and it’s unlikely the major news media will check to connect the dots of donations made and favorable deals happening for the donors.

The funny part is that since Senator Clinton is having such problems getting cleared for Secretary of State, how in the hell was she ok to become President? Well more on the problems of having a viper in your backyard later.

Politicians use polispeak to get elected. It happens all the time. It’s old politics. And President Obama seems to be following that path to the tee. The only questions that remain are what other campaign promises will be broken, and how will it affect America.

Obama lovers can now begin their rants, all of them avoiding the fact that President Obama is breaking from his promises.

Labels: American politics, Iraq, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. economy

“Many ___ feel that the country their forefathers built has been ... stolen from them, so there's in some places a real boiling rage, and that can only become worse as more people lose jobs."

This is about President Obama, the economy, and America. But not exactly the way you might be thinking. The above comment is a quote missing just one word. And that word changes the meaning completely.

That word is “Whites”, placed after many in the first sentence.

But take a moment and imagine that in its place the word African American. The meaning changes, but how it changes might be really interesting for the nation.

The reason why this is important is because since the election, 200 racially motivated hate incidents have occurred. Each of these incidents are crimes, of varying degrees and severity. And the offenders have been across the gambit of age ranges from teens to far older adults. And of course some are small minded racists.

The thing is that most of these people, though White, are not the stereotypical image the media has created of modern-day racists. Many are high school and college educated. Some are from middle class or higher income homes. Of course the traditional isolationist, less educated, poor, weak willed, and essentially backwards racist still have not disappeared from the earth yet.

It seems that since the election many Whites are coming to the view that the current status of the Government is exemplified by the Presidency of Barack Obama. And that’s without him having taken the Oath of Office, or serving a single day in office yet. Which is even more baffling when the fact that Government has been run by Whites for 232 years is ever considered.

But I started this conversation considering the quote. And I asked what you thought when you interject different races into the spot where Whites was stated.

As an educated Black Puerto Rican the change in the word makes the statement make sense. It is the anger of living in a nation that was literally built on the bones and blood of ancestors – and never receiving a thank you or I’m sorry. It’s the anger of being kept from schools, jobs, homes for hundreds of years. It’s the way America has been everyday up to and including today. And tomorrow looks only slightly better.

Considering history, especially any aspect of Black History in America beyond the paragraph that existed when I was in school, it makes sense for that statement to be said by Blacks. And it seems foolish for Whites to say it. It actually sounds laughable when I hear it worded that way.

But if some Whites, who today have a greater potential to achieve virtually anything they want than I do after 40 years of work, believe this statement to be true what does that mean for America? When people who enjoy ownership of 99% of the wealth of the nation, 90% of the Government positions, 95% of ownership and executive management positions, start to get anxious where is the nation going?

I had a statement back when I was a kid

“If it takes more than 1 guy at the same time to beat me in a fight, I must be a badass and damn intimidating.”

President-elect Obama has yet to pass a law, take an Oath, or even pick a Cabinet. But the fearful are already reacting, shifting blame of any perceived or real ill on Obama’s back. This isn’t about politics, this is just racial. And Obama must be the biggest badass of all.

The more I hear of these things, the more concerned I become for the nation. Because if we do not speak about and come to terms with the issues of race that pervade every instance of life in America, we are going to have an explosion. Maybe not during the Obama Administration (though it could be), but at some point in our collective future.

And it will be bad. For everyone.

But what does that quote make you think?

Labels: media bias, Obama Administration, President Barack Obama, race in America, racism

Ok, now that the Obama election win inspired drunkenness has passed the question for many is what is he going to do. Fantastic speeches, and pointing fingers at the past are wonderful ways to get elected, but mean nothing when you need to lead. What can we discern now?

Well we know that Obama is leaning heavily on his old Chicago political contacts. And so far they have been very non-partisan Democrats. I am speaking of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. So that means that bi-partisan policies are likely going out the window right after President Bush exits the White house door.

This bodes well for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democrat-led Congress. They will have a field day passing all the laws they hoped for. Whether that will be good for the Average American is highly questionable.

Speaker Pelosi is relatively giddy right now, because he 2nd stimulus plan is well on the way of being passed. After her failure to slip the plan into the $700 billion dollar bailout (then only a mere $50 billion plan) without notice – and the failure to fund ACORN and other pro-Democrat organizations with any proceeds from the bailout (instead of paying back Americans) – Pelosi didn’t give up. Her next step was to approach the Bush Administration with a $150 billion stimulus package, right after the auto industry received $25 billion for their woes. When that also failed (something Pelosi has been familiar with) she got quite and waited for after the election. And just as was expected President Obama has promised that a 2nd Stimulus Plan, for at least $300 billion will be passed.

The problem here is that it won’t work and will either increase taxes, the national debt, or both (most likely). Why won’t it work? The same reason the first was a failure. The economy sucks.

The stimulus plans are in essence the equivalent of adding more water to a leaky bathtub. It doesn’t solve the problem, it just gives you more water on the floor. The first time most took the money and paid down on their gas and oil costs. A few were able to lower their credit card debt slightly, and a small portion actually went and bought something.

That was all before several massive banks and brokerages failed, Fannie and Freddie died (to the apparent amazement of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank), several industries started to lay-off jobs or close, and the auto industry walked up to the free money line. And just as many are in danger of losing their homes, if not more.

What will a second Stimulus plan do? Well since gas and oil are cheaper, pay down mortgages, go into the bank savings incase you lose your job, buy extra food in case you lose your job, pay down on the credit card debt in case you lose your job – notice a pattern? Buying Christmas or Easter (depending on when the checks go out) gifts just doesn’t rate very high compared to losing your job, and thus will not promote the economy.

Another thing we can expect that has been stated is higher taxes. Yes the start of that plan is the $250,000 bracket. But with over $1.2 trillion spent this year, and other $837 billion proposed in new program spending, and $300 billion at least of a stimulus plan, higher taxes is not an exclusive tax the rich option. And we know President Obama favors removing the President Bush tax cuts, so that’s 3% more tax for everyone above $31,850. Expect quite a bit more very soon. My guess, a net 7% tax increase across the board.

To go with the higher taxes, expect higher unemployment and inflation. Someone has to pay for the higher cost of business, and corporations will always be the last to accept that bill. So the higher costs of everyday goods and fear of losing a job really kills the stimulus plan – which was a dumb idea in the first place.

To further ensure that the economy rattles at the bottom of the barrel capital gains taxes are going to go higher. This expectation is already hitting the stock market. As I was saying to a friend and former stockbroker

“The smart money is getting out. They started once it was likely that Obama would win the election. They cleared most of their positions before the election, waited for mom and pop to buy into the market before the election to raise prices, and the second President Obama won they started to get all the way out. My bet is that we lose 500 points on or in the week of the inauguration.”

I mean why wouldn’t you hold cash right now. Bond rates are useless, and capital gains taxes means you need a 35% profit just to break-even, which in a good market is tough to nail down.

You can also expect to see even less revenue in the media arena. Because of the Fairness Act, which requires that any talk show or political program must be followed with equal time of the same format for the opposing side. Liberals may love to say that the election was a mandate, but since liberal radio and programs lose money faster than Nancy Pelosi can increase stimulus plan budgeting it seems to be nothing but bluster. Still Air America Radio has a final chance to hit the airwaves again (they went bankrupt in 2 years because no one was listening). Until the loss gets so excessive that radio stations get rid of both liberals and conservatives.

What a great plan. If you can’t get anyone to listen to what you have to say, shut down your opponents from speaking too. Even if people are listening to what they say. Because silence is more fair than debate and criticism. It also helps to cut down on people noticing that your policies do more harm than good.

So far if the prospect of rising inflation, fewer jobs, higher debt, lower stock market, and the continued prospect of losing your home haven’t got you excited - while losing the distraction and/or conversation of talk radio – you can smile at the thought of higher wages. A minimum wage hike is very likely to come early in an Obama Presidency.

The hike must happen early in my opinion because the economy will worsen as the year progresses, and all the goodwill President Obama has will evaporate as fast as stimulus checks hitting the consumer market. But higher employee costs will mean more money the corporations have to pass off to the consumer, and more people that will need to be fired to maintain current (or even slightly reduced) profit levels.

Most of all this are items I expected and discussed prior to the election. And just as I predicted President Obama is following every step of what I mentioned. And the outcome is becoming more of what is obviously a bad plan. But there is something that most did not expect.

There will be no healthcare reform. Not in the first 100 days, not in year 2. The nation can’t afford it. The Government is too inefficient to run it. And because Biden believes that the nation will be under duress within the first 6 months of the Obama Administration, we will be too preoccupied (so much for a President doing more than one thing at a time). That campaign promise is out the window. As is stopping jobs from going overseas. In fact more companies will choose to go to cheaper markets rather than pay the rising cost of staying in America.

So in the first 100 days taxes will go up, as will inflation. The economy will get worse, and the stock market will drop to about 7600 – a true rout. National debt will increase, several more banks will fail. The auto industry will get a bailout of their own (around $100 billion at a guess), and so will AIG (again). Domestic drilling won’t happen, because that would make energy cost cheaper – which President Obama has directly stated he does not want. And we likely will have an international crisis that will bring us close to war, and cause Europe to go bi-polar again and dislike President Obama - though not as much as President Bush.

That’s my prediction of the first 100 days. I hope that I am wrong. I really want President Obama to hit the history books as a great President. I’m selfish and Black. I want to see his historical image live up to his speeches. But his policies as they stand means it won’t happen.

A real long prediction, President Obama loses in 2012 to a Republican. His legacy will be worse than President Carter. Expect inflation at about 15% and unemployment to match. And as I said Average taxes will be at least 7% higher across the board. Hope you’ve been saving money.

Labels: AIG, Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, stimulus package, stock market, tax policy

I am now happy to state that the conservation initiative on the ballot in Florida was passed, with 68.4% of the vote. If I in any way helped voters come to this conclusion I am especially pleased.

Looking forward I would add that I hope that actions of Florida residents leads to similar actions in other states as well. There is no negative in setting aside some land for conservation. Trees are a good thing for everyone. And the bonus of a tax incentive never hurts in a bad economy either.

Looking further forward, we can expect that the Obama administration will seek to further conservation efforts. These will be efforts that will be mixed in the public’s eyes. That is because the plans as stated will be painful to the average American as opposed to plans like that in Florida.

I am speaking directly to 2 things President Obama has been quoted on. The first is his desire to see the cost of energy, specifically electricity, to go higher. The reason for this is to force conservation through lack of funds. The reasoning is that by forcing prices higher, less energy will be used and thus conserve more. The initial step is expected to hurt the economy slightly, in President Obama’s view, and will take a short while for the public to adjust to. Thereafter the benefit will continue and Americans will be comfortable in that environment.

The other item is the recently released tapes of President Obama, before the election, stating that his goal is to effectively cause the creation of coal powered plants to be fiscal suicide. His plans will cause coal power plants to become bankrupt.

This would have several effects. the first is to increase the cost of electricity – explained above. Another would be to limit the amount of power available at any time. Again this would force consumers to use less power to ensure that blackouts and brownouts do not occur. Additionally this would significantly improve the air quality from the U.S.

I am no fan of forced conservation, as you may gather. I believe in education and incentives to mold behavior. Obviously not everyone agrees with that plan.

If President Obama enacts his conservation plans as previously stated, America will consume fewer fossil fuels and help worldwide conservation efforts. And like most types of change some pain will be felt. But such efforts are not enough, even if they are effective.

The world is far more than just America. And while America contributes greatly to the use of fossil fuels, poor air quality, land usage, and waste creation we are not the only cause of these negatives. China and India are increasing their output and consumption of these negatives annually. Even with a drop in U.S. rates, without worldwide attention and conservation efforts China and India alone will soon make up for any decreases in America. That scenario is counter-productive and troubling.

I expect and anticipate the efforts of President Obama and his Administration in speaking with these and other nations. And if I can suggest anything it would be to provide a carrot and not a stick in persuading other nations to curtail their usage rates. Like in Florida, when people are given an alternative and a bit of sugar they take the medicine without complaint.

If you agree with my view, tell your elected officials. Because they will listen even if they don’t have to fear elections for a year.

But if you disagree, or have a better solution, please do share it.

Labels: China, coal, conservation, Florida, India, President Barack Obama, tax break

Well today has been a busy day of video editing. I hope those that see my Youtube channel enjoy it. One of the topics I hit on today is the comments of Ralph Nader.

Nader was speaking in reference to President Obama and likened his Presidency as being either for the people or a sell-out to corporations. It is that sell-out potential that I want to focus on.



The words used to describe the potential that Nader fears was

“...or Uncle Tom for giant corporations” - radio station KTRH

Besides the fact that I take great offense to even hinting that our next President could be an Uncle Tom (which is offensive enough to any Black American) is the precedence it provides. This is a comment that is racially based and negatively at that. Its implication is perhaps the most offensive comment I have ever heard directed towards a President.

The office of the Presidency is an honorable one. It is the highest office in the land. And those that occupy it are the representation of America to the world. As such it demands a level of respect.

That does not mean a President is above ridicule, question, and/or criticism. But the manner in which these things are done should have respect for the office is not the individual. Anything less demeans not only the President but the nation as well.

Nader has in a few words insulted America. He has also opened the door to racially belittle the actions of our 44th President before he has even uttered one word of the Oath. This has never happened before to my knowledge.

So what I take from this is the thought that if President Obama acts in any manner in which Nader or others don’t like its fair game to demean him by calling him Uncle Tom or n-word. I don’t mean the average Joe on the street, I mean in the media, press, and pundits. That this is acceptable is to tell the world that it’s ok to demean the President and every other American in the nation.

Can you imagine President Obama pushing for a law that some group dislikes and calling him a dumb coon because of it, on national TV. Or likening him to an n-word on national television if a controversial law passes? Nader has opened that door.

Already I have received comments at Youtube trying to remind me how much Nader has done for the nation and African Americans.

"...more like a metaphor to the point he's making, uncle tom has different connotations). His point is that obama votes and sides with corporate interest because his campaign was pocketed by them.

...Nader is an intellegent man, a great man who has exposed more ills done to blacks than Obama, he's not a raciest, he didn't call him an Uncle Tom and be very honest, i didn't think the uncle tom thing was that necessary." - thediversion77 on Youtube

That’s wonderful that his past is truthfully impressive. That does not take away from what he is doing right now.

And this is not like calling President Bush dumb. This is like cursing the President out.

No President should be subject to this kind of treatment, especially when they have yet to even utter a word. It is harmful to America, and the office of the President. I cannot imagine any justification for such commentary and I can only see these creating rifts in America so wide as to further damage the nation.

Race is not a criterion to judge anyone on. As such it is not a comment that should be casually used to criticize a potential action of a President. And having a respected past is not justification for such actions.

One other thing I would note is that Sheppard Smith of Fox news was correct in confronting Ralph Nader on this comment. I have my own problems when it comes to Smith and certain issues (like his glee over OJ). But he also rightly challenged Nader and offered him an escape route, which Nader denied.

It seems odd to me that Fox News is constantly criticized for its reporting; accused of bias constantly, but over this entire election it has been the only station that has predominantly avoided blatantly using race and/or active promotion to a particular candidate. And this may be why it quickly and directly has questioned Nader on this issue. Because the ramifications of this will show up over the next 4 years. And it will only get worse.

Labels: Fox News, news media, O'Reilly Factor, President Barack Obama, race in America, racial controversy, Ralph Nader, Sheppard Smith, YouTube

For those that missed it, here are the speeches made by Senator McCain and President Obama after the election results were announced.

Senator McCain Concedes


President Obama victory speech pt 1


President Obama victory speech pt 2


Both were very good speeches. I though Senator McCain was exceptionally gracious and supportive of President Obama.

President Obama set the bar high. Let's hope that he can match or exceed it.

Labels: President Barack Obama, Presidential election race 2008, Senator John McCain

President Obama has won the 2008 election. I am as elated by that news as any African American or minority in America right now. But at the same time I am looking at what the nation said last night.

At 6pm initial exit poll results started to flow and there were several important facts that were provided by the polls, granted that the information was slanted as all exit polls have been shown to be.

While 93% stated that the economy was negative right now, only 47% thought the economy would improve in 2009 and 40% supported the $700 billion bailout package that is still working it’s way into the economy. This bailout may be part of the reason that 73% disapproved of the job the Democrat-led Congress has done. And it may also be part of the reason that 70% predict that taxes will be higher under President Obama.

And that’s the important thing to note. The economy was the single most important issue among those polled. 62% felt the economy was priority #1. It was that thought and the thought that Senator McCain would continue the policies of President Bush (50%) resonated with the masses along with the feeling that President Obama was in touch with them (57%).

Honestly these are dumb reasons.

Several key Democrats presided over the downfall of the mortgage crisis, thus directly requiring a bailout, which had it’s creation in the Democratic policies of President Clinton and Democrats pushing loans to people that did not qualify to receive them. Somehow this escaped the public notice. As did the thought that there is nothing to stop a Democratic President with a liberal agenda and voting record, backed by a Democratic Congress, from creating more bad policies that even more Democrats may ignore in favor of Party unity in a time of an economic downturn.

$1.2 trillion dollars may well look cheap before the next 4 years are up. Especially since President Obama has promised to expand the Government by $837 billion and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is waiting for the inauguration to present a $300 billion stimulus plan (at least, it may be higher by then based on her comments). That means 2009 may well start with a Congress approved budget, passed without consideration in full, with a stimulus plan that doesn’t work in an economic downturn. That’s another $1.1 trillion and that does not include anything necessary yet. And all of it must be paid by the American public at some point soon.

Still 51% felt that Obama’s policies were just right (obviously they didn’t have a calculator handy), though the polls also showed that 60% felt that Senator John McCain and not President Obama has the experience to traverse things properly.

And for those like Harry Reid that want to say that President Obama was elected as a statement of the people, the polls (which skew Democratic) stated that only 30% of voters picked President Obama because he shared their views. That’s piss poor low. What is more accurate and clear is that voters made a statement about President Bush – whose disapproval was just 2 points better than Congress at 73%. Sadly he wasn’t the one that was up for election so the point is moot.

It was the economy, and the promise of President Obama to provide money to low income Americans even if they don’t file taxes that made the election – which was stated in the poll by the 51% that thought the Government should do more to solve problems. So the more that pundits and politicians alike explained why this plan to offer the equivalent of welfare at the cost of the economy, the more it guaranteed a win for President Obama. For the 81% that feared that their family finances would be hurt by the mortgage crisis/credit crunch, it was like manna.

Don’t get me wrong, millions were voting in this election (in excess of 105 million by the last count I saw). Not all of those that voted agreed with all of the above. But more than enough did to provide President Obama with the win. Also in that group are Americans that voted for Obama based on race – some 47% believing that President Obama would mean an improvement in race relations for the nation. That part I hope is true, both for selfish and national reasons.

But while the electoral vote was huge, and will be the focus of comments by Democrats in justifying their agenda and giddy news media, the popular vote was quite close. For most of the race up until the well after 11:39pm there was only a 3% difference in votes (which was the margin I had previously mentioned I thought would decide the election). This was no landslide victory.

The nation is still as center-right as it was yesterday. But it will be lead by a left of center Government in the Executive, Legislative, and potentially by the end of 4 years Judicial branches. That means higher inflation, higher taxes, Government run healthcare (equal in stature and performance to the way the VA is run), retreat from Iraq and likely Afghanistan, legal abortion at any stage (so effectively an alternative contraceptive), gay marriage, public votes for unions, higher electricity costs, and no nuclear power. Oh I forgot fewer coal plants, higher demand for electricity due to electric car mandates and less supply, more ethanol gluts, and limited if any domestic drilling.

Doubt me if you will but just keep track of these items as the next 4 years go by. In fact I expect the 111th Congress to vote on these 4 items in January or February

2nd stimulus plan
Tax code change for people below $200,000 - $250,000 and corporations and investments
End of secret ballots for unions
Passing the Fairness Doctrine – effectively either limiting free speech that does not express liberal views or glutting media with liberal speech that would not make it without Government intervention

Some may find all the above appealing. But almost half the nation did not, and with reason. Reasons we all may well learn very quickly.

Not to mention the crisis that Vice President Biden promised to occur. And that President Obama would seemingly fail at, again as VP Biden promised.

But I could be wrong. The economy could rebound without help, or inflation and slowdown. The stock market might not sell off another 1000 points by the end of the inauguration in January. Americans might just go right out and spend all the credit they can find this holiday season and Wind energy may become effective in 6 months (much to the benefit of Nancy Pelosi’s stock account). I hope I am wrong.

Because I honestly want the First Black President to be the greatest President ever. I want him to be seen as a strong leader. A world leader that will defend America with force if pushed, with wisdom to improve – or at least stabilize – the economy. A President that lifts the nation such that teen pregnancy and high school dropout rates fall lower. A President that inspires small business start-ups and job creation. And if he can convince China to join us in cleaning the earth, and ensure quality healthcare I’d love it.

Throw in reparations and an apology for slavery and I’d be tickled pink.

But we all know that isn’t going to happen. But we will get change. And I will blog about the positives, negatives, promises kept and broken. And I’m more than willing to eat crow and say I was wrong – especially if the First Black President can sustain history in the manner I described above.

We will see. It all starts in 76 days.

Labels: Congress, mortgage bailout, Nancy Pelosi, President Barack Obama, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, tax policy, U.S. economy

At 11pm, with the announcement of California, Senator Obama has garnered 297 electoral votes and is thus the next President of the United States.

It is a historic moment. Millions never expected to be alive on the day that a Black man could be President. 389 years ago all of the African Americans ancestors were considered property, 143 years ago we became free and recognized by law as equal to any other human being - as we should always have been.

It has been a huge change in the past few centuries. And it has been accomplished by an extraordinary man. No matter what you may think of his political ideas, there can be no question that Obama is the embodiment of a different America than even just 10 years ago.

This is the First Black President. President Obama has broken the highest ceiling in the nation. He has become a symbol that truely, finally, in the most real sense any American can grow up and become anything they choose to be if they strive hard enough for it.

This is a night to celebrate. It is a moment of history I cannot bring to words. It is something that will resonate for lifetimes.

I hope that this will signal a growth in America. In our culture and society. I hope it is the first step in a future that regardless of economics and othe issues brings about the end of the race issues that have plagued America since our birth.

Tomorrow is another day, and we can dispute the politics then. But tonight there is only one thing to say.

World, say hello to the 44th President of the United States, President Barack Obama.

Labels: President Barack Obama, Presidential election race 2008