Desperate for jobs and cool shun towards Dems and President Barack

Dems sound alarm on state races

The buffoon President with his sorry Administration

President Obama over the past few days along with the stupid press Secretary Gibbs has been telling the media pool how outraged they have been over these AIG bonuses, while all the time knowing that the Stimulus Bill President Obama had too sign so quickly, included the prevision placed in the bill by Christopher Dodd that had added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama Administration provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009 which exempts the very AIG bonuses that the administration has been so upset about. So the administration did know about these bonuses, and have known for over two weeks, per White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Who expressed confidence two weeks ago that White House officials were fully aware of how AIG was using taxpayer funds. Now Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG: 0.95, 0.1699, 21.78%) bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. the democrats including the beloved President are running around double talking, while telling the American people that they are working on a new bill to now tax those who are receiving these such high bonuses so that they can say where looking out for the taxpayers best interest.

Now lets just remember one thing here before we go on, No Republicans in the House voted yes for this bill, and only three idiot Republicans in the senate voted for this Bill. This Bill is a democrat bill that was signed by a buffoon President.

Below is a letter that has been sent to the President

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The American people are rightly outraged over the news that AIG is paying $165 billion in bonuses to its executives. This news is especially troubling given that AIG received another $30 billion in bailouts just two weeks ago. The egregious actions of AIG underscore the fact that even more taxpayer dollars are vulnerable to waste and abuse due to the unprecedented spending levels brought about by the Troubled Asset Relief Program and economic stimulus legislation.
Given your recent expressions of outrage about bonuses being paid to AIG executives, I am concerned that members of your Administration may not be bringing critical information to your attention in a timely manner.
There is good reason to believe that White House officials have long known about impending bonus payments to AIG executives, even prior to the decision two weeks ago to approve a $30 billion bailout payment to AIG.
Two weeks ago, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs expressed confidence that White House officials were fully aware of how AIG was using taxpayer funds.
Recent news reports have also suggested that officials in your Administration may have more knowledge about the AIG bonus payments than has previously been disclosed. CBS News reports that an official in your Administration said that the AIG bonuses have “long been known about inside and outside AIG.”
I would appreciate if you would assist me in understanding the extent of the Administration’s knowledge of the bonuses being paid to AIG executives, including the earliest date at which senior Administration or White House officials became aware of the pending bonus payments to AIG employees and when this was first brought to your attention. I would appreciate it if you would respond no later than March 24, 2009.
Sincerely,
Darrell Issa
Ranking Member

Taxpayers are funding trips for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats

President Obama over the past few weeks have chastised large corporations for using private corporate jets for travel to Washington D.C, as well as AIG and Wells Fargo as well as others for there spending practices. But when it comes to our Representatives in the House and Congress you can hear nothing from the almighty Obama.




Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and her husband with 7 other Democrats have left Washington D.C after voting in that great spending bill and have taken off to Italy in a Military Chartered Jet at a cost of $10,000 per hour, with a total fly time of 20 hours. While in Italy the speaker has visited sites like museums and has gone to several receptions.

While all of this is going on President Obama is working hard traveling from city to city to tell the American people to buckle down and prepare for tough times as the economy goes further into decline. This comes at a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills and are cutting back their own personal expenses.

Here's another one, Andrew Young and Martian Luther King the 3rd with 6 other members of congress with their families traveling to India to mark the occasion when martin Luther king traveled there to study the message of Gandhi. The U.S State Department and our Congress paid this trip using our taxpayer dollars.

Where is the outrage by the national media, and why hasn't this been on the front page of our national newspapers.

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition to express outrage at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Obama to "fail."

"Jobs, health care, our place in the world -- the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed," the petition reads. "Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh's Attacks -- sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama."

The petition comes after Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill Friday that they need to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launches an online petition to express outrage at Rush Limbaugh after he said he wanted President Obama to fail. On Monday, Limbaugh shot back at Obama, opening his show by saying, "I'm the man you should not be listening, according to President Obama."
"I think [Obama] wants me to fail," Limbaugh said. "He's more frightened of me than he is of John Boehner, which doesn't say much for our party."

The remarks came after Limbaugh said last week on his radio show: "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to this guy, say 'okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails'."

The committee's online petition includes a YouTube video featuring audio clips of the radio host's recent remarks.

January’s 2009 Agenda for Democrats starts with the Elimination of your 401K

Powerful House Democrats in July 2008 were eyeing new proposals to overhaul the nation's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive. House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute. Under the plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government. The employee would be limited to max 5% investment of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would offer a lousy 3 percent return a year, adjusted for inflation. The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. With the majority in the House and Senate in control by the Democrats, this program will be on Priority Fast Track.

Well it appears the democrats are following in the same steps as the cash-strapped Argentina (socialist system )who just did it in the name of protecting workers' retirement accounts.

This plan was originally proposed by Theresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, and presented to Miller and McDermott last july 2008 at a House hearing.

Obama did promised to solve this problem by making "rich people" pay more into Social Security while reducing their benefits, transforming a retirement plan into a wealth transfer plan.

In one move, the hated private market would be deprived of the capital that makes "capitalism" possible, and the government would have the money to fund the massive expansion of government programs, subsidies and tax "cuts" promised by Barack Obama.

Commentary: The poverty of Democrats' ideas for cities

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."
What hate-mongering politician would be so politically incorrect as to suggest that things like higher minimum wages and more government handouts don't actually help the poor? I'll identify the culprit at the end of this column, but for now, I'm more interested in figuring out why that statement sounds so controversial.
Poverty is one of the few national issues that, at least on the surface, unites us all. It's not a political condition; it's a human one. After all, when's the last time you've heard a politician campaign on a pro-poverty platform?
But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.
No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you'll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.
Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working.
For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.
Don't Miss

Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.
The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.
Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.
Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.
Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.
Not too long ago, I had the great honor of being invited to a charity dinner hosted by Chris Gardner. He's the guy whose rags-to-riches life was portrayed by Will Smith in the movie "Pursuit of Happyness." Chris had been on my show a few times, and I've always admired his story and his message of hope through personal responsibility.
As I prepared for the dinner and looked into Chris' charity, I started to get nervous. The roster was filled with liberals, most of whom would probably hate me. Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo, Alan Alda, Kenneth Cole and Charles Grodin were just a few of the people I was worried about running into.
But the question I kept asking myself was, why? Why can't people from wildly different political stripes come together in support of a common cause without feeling alienated? Why is an issue like poverty "owned" by one political party?
I consider myself a conservative, but I consider myself an American and a human being first. When people whom I normally agree with screw things up, I call them on it. Yet the people in these cities apparently don't. Newark keeps drinking the Kool-Aid, electing the same people with the same ideas, slipping down the poverty list (along with the "Places Never to Visit Unless it's the Airport" list) and wondering why.
We've talked a lot about "change" in this country recently, but there's a much more important catchphrase that we've neglected: "All politics is local." Maybe instead of focusing so much on who we put in charge of our country, we should focus more on who we put in charge of our cities.
Oh, and before I forget. The hateful politician who suggested that we should be "driving" or "leading" the poor out of poverty? It was Benjamin Franklin.
Good thing he never tried to run for mayor of Newark.Glenn Beck/CNN

Californians are facing 9.25 sales tax rate in some counties due to their incompetence in running local cities and California government. Who is in control of California the democrats they control local government and the California legislator these folks have been on a spending spree over the last 5 years and now they want us the tax payer to pay there entitlement programs they have put in place for the past 5 years. The thing to do is to roll back our spending to what it was 5 yrs ago and cancel all those programs but the democrats won't do that. So now we want to put a democrat in the Whitehouse with the same mind set as those all over the country running our local governments and cities. It make no since to me, all I hear about is how bad the war was in Iraq. And yes the war was not handled right in the beginning, but what about the democrats using the war as a smoke screen against there own failed policy on running our local cities and state legislators.

Anthony Landaeta