Letter to Glen Beck By A Miami Cuban

This letter was forwarded to me by a friend. Like the author I am a Cuban-born American, that immigrated to the United States forty-eight years ago. I also agree with all that the author says. I have observed the gradual, slithering takeover by the left of the different sectors of American society, beginning with the colleges, followed by the media, and recently by the financial institutions. The sector left is the American people themselves, who will be completely controlled by the government through the take over of the health care system. This hasn't happened yet and we can still stop it if we all unite and demand our congress members that we'll vote them out if they sign this law. This letter is an eye opener for those who have not lived through a Communist takeover.

Dear Mr. Beck,

I watched your program last week, “The New Republic: America’s Future.” Needless is to say that it was amazing. Your research was outstanding and commendable. As the week progressed you presented many unanswered questions about America’s future path. By Friday you had some answers and a great determination to do something about the situation. The purpose of this communication is to let you know that the bottom line is that these are the preliminary steps into establishing a totalitarian, anti-capitalism government.

I’m a Cuban living in Miami for the last forty-eight years. The older generation of Cubans identified the ‘changes’ Mr. Obama was promising and caught on to his real intentions very early on during his campaign. Evidently, you don’t have a good relationship with an exiled Cuban. Unfortunately, we have been the witnesses to a similar process back in 1959. What is happening in the US is the result of a very well oiled machine that started to lay out its plan many years ago.

You mentioned that some of these anti-government organizations started in 2006 and they are not new. You are missing the fact that this plan started before 1959. That mechanism was put in place through the leader of a revolution that brought down a right wing dictatorship, so common in Latin America, and Cubans blindly supported Fidel Castro without asking what he intended to do with the country’s future. He had evil intentions; he was hungry for power and thirsty for blood.

You have to realize that the current government system in Venezuela was conceived in Cuba by the Castro regime. After Venezuela, other Latin American countries have been victims of the same process. Chavez is Castro’s favorite disciple. I cannot fathom how it is possible that Americans can be as blind as not to see what is happening to their Latin American neighbors for the last 50 years.

It was not a coincidence that the big money that poured out into the Obama campaign came from his left-wing friends. It was not a coincidence that he was singled out because, although American by birth, he doesn’t feel as a true American. That is obvious when he goes to other countries and badmouths the US.

This is not totally Mr. Obama's fault. He might be only a puppet, but he shares the anti-American, anti-capitalists feelings with the left wing radicals he has surrounded himself with since the very beginning of his administration. He is charismatic, young, clean cut, good looking and, although totally inept to answer a question intelligently, he is a great orator and is able to brilliantly deliver what other people had written for him. To top it all off, he is black !

During the presidential campaign an old friend told me: 'This is the Trojan horse; once Obama is in the presidency the anti-capitalism system will work from within.' When I learned that Chavez and Raul Castro were eagerly awaiting Obama’s triumph in the elections, I realized that Mr. Obama was not the right man for the job. We have an old saying that basically means that a man is made out of cthe same fiber of the people with whom he associates. If these two dictators needed Obama in the White House, he was bad news for America, and that alone was a good reason for me to vote for the opposition.

It is not a coincidence that all his appointees have ties with left wing organizations and they are anti-capitalist. This was all extremely well planned. Is not a coincidence that our generation and several future generations owe exorbitant amounts of money to China. The last time I looked, China is a communist country where the economy is great, but where its citizens were afraid
to talk to reporters during the last Olympic Games. The one who holds the purse strings calls the shots, the old saying says. Unfortunately, although beyond your wildest imagination, the US already belongs to China.

I can go on forever presenting you step by step what’s coming next, but I think if you really want more information, ignore me and please contact prominent people who can offer you a thing or two. For example, Mr. James Carson, chief of the United States Interests Section in Havana, Cuba, from September 10, 2002
to September 10, 2005. Mr. Carlos Gutierrez, former secretary of commerce during the Bush administration. Mr. Carlos A. Montaner, one of the most widely-read columnists in the Spanish Language and great defender of democracy. The rest of the names I can offer are too numerous to mention.

I’m totally surprised that your program is still on the air. After last week, I thought you would have to leave the U.S. the very next day as one of our radio commentators did in Cuba after a similar program in 1960. If a miracle of God doesn’t materialize soon, Mr. Beck, America is in big trouble.

Thank you for your attention.

PS - Please forward this mail to Ms. Michelle Malkin since I don’t have her contact information. Thanks

(NAME DELETED TO PROTECT THE AUTHOR)

Reply to President Obama's Letter

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you for your letter requesting my contribution to "build a new foundation for America".

What do you mean by building "a new foundation for America"? Not only do you have to explain to all what this new foundation is, but how does one go about building it. It certainly sounds like it will be quite a job, considering that building our wonderful country started before 1776.

I, for one, do not want a new America. I came to this country in 1961 at 18 years old with my mother and younger sister. We had no money or valuable possessions. My mother had lost her husband in the Cuban struggle, and she abandoned it all -- her family, friends, home, job and lifetime possessions, so that my sister and I could live in freedom.

To make this story short, the wonderful people that we met offered us love, friendship and guidance. We never knew discrimination. American private citizens, not the government, helped us with their friendship and support. We did not need nor want government handouts. We always paid our way.

I worked full time and attended college at night and got my degree in Economics. I applied for entry into an MBA program and was accepted by the University of Chicago. I never had a problem getting a job, getting into college, renting, buying a car, or anything else. My sister worked and studied hard and became a physician.

After a few years the three of us became American citizens. I love the America I have known up to now, with its freedom and opportunity. I do not want it changed. Thank you for your good intentions, but please, do not change America.

Sincerely,
Alicia

Letter from President Obama

I frequently visit the White House website just to be informed of what they're saying. On one of those occasions I must have provided my e-mail address. Since then I have received a couple of letters from the President. The text of the last one follows.

"The White House, Washington

Dear Friend,

Last week, I announced United We Serve – a nationwide call to service challenging you and all Americans to volunteer this summer and be part of building a new foundation for America.

And when I say “all,” I mean everyone – young and old, from every background, all across the country. We need individuals, community organizations, corporations, foundations, and our government to be part of this effort.

Today, for the official kick off of United We Serve, members of my administration have fanned out across America to participate in service events and encourage all Americans to join them.

The First Lady is rolling up her sleeves and getting to work too. But before she headed out today, she asked me to share this message with you. (Not included.)

Our nation faces some of the greatest challenges it has in generations and we know it’s going to take a lot of hard work to get us back on track.

While Michelle and I are calling on every American to participate in United We Serve, the call to service doesn’t end this fall. We need to stay involved in our towns and communities for a long time to come. After all, America’s new foundation will be built one neighborhood at a time – and that starts with you.

Thank you,
President Barack Obama

The Ugly American Makes Way for the ‘Apologetic’ American

by Herbert London - Contributing Editor, FamilySecurityMatters.org

Listening to the American tourists traveling in France, it is apparent we are in the “age of Obama.” The Ugly American has morphed into the Apologetic American, the one who is sorry for everything. This American apologizes for breathing French air; for being colonists; for appearing arrogant.

It is hard to fathom how this new American can apologize to the insufferable French for arrogance or colonialism, but there you have it. American tourists merely ape their president. In this period, Americans are unequivocally sorry.

Now in order for these tourists to appear genuine, they must impose historical amnesia on themselves. Forget the role 19- and 20-year-old soldiers played in liberating France during World War II. Forget American blood that seeped into the sands at Normandy. Forget the Marshall Plan that rebuilt wore torn France. In fact, forget much of the 20th century.

Rewrite history so that the French appear as sophisticates and Americans hopelessly “nouveau arriviste.” Not only must you rewrite this history, it must be rewritten by the Americans themselves. They will be their own revisionists.

From any point of view, this is sickening. The American apologist has nothing for which apology is necessary. If anyone should be bowing and offering thanks it is the French. When a Frenchman recently upbraided Americans for only speaking English, he should have been reminded that were it not for Americans the French would only be speaking one language as well – German.

Admittedly the French generally know more about wine than Americans, but when it comes to manners, what the French call, “politesse,” Americans generally beat them at their own game.

Every time an American apologizes for Vietnam or “wrecking the Atlantic alliance” (to quote President Obama) I want to slap him into sensible thought. It was the French who left Vietnam with their tail between their legs and President Eisenhower and Kennedy who bailed them out.

It was De Gaulle who refused to join NATO and demanded a “force de frappe,” a toothless response to Soviet nuclear threats. And it is the United States that is responsible for putting teeth in the European fighting force. Although probably uncharitable, some have argued that the French gave the United States the Statue of Liberty
because she has only one arm in the air.

Now that President Obama has become an instant hero in France, ala J.F.K., it is not uncommon for a Frenchman to say at last America has put race behind it and selected a black man. Whenever I hear this comment I always ask, when will France elect an Algerian? My comment is usually greeted with silence.

President Obama has given impetus to the contemporary French argument that the United States may not be so bad after all. But this is an America that refuses to flex its military muscle; an America that appears confused and without direction. If one can find a stance in the new administration, it is the accommodative spirit that cannot distinguish between an enemy and a friend. It is an America that says pleasantries about Iran and castigates Israel. It is an administration that wants to turn back the clock in its dealings with Muslim nations, but refuses to mention the sacrifices Americans made for Muslims in the Balkans and Iraq among other places.

Although it is an unpopular position, I prefer the Ugly American to the Apologetic American: the one wearing the horribly garish Hawaiian shirt, the one who brags about American accomplishments, the person who knows America bailed out France and isn’t afraid to say so, the one who interred political correctness and the one who refuses to apologize for American actions. Americans sacrificed blood and treasure for Europeans. That is nothing of which to be ashamed.

As I see it, we need a dose of Yankee-first patriotism. That surge of nationalistic fervor might do us some good and might even have a chastening effect on the French (Notice I said might).

It is strange that I long for the Ugly American I once criticized, but whenever I hear the Apologetic American on the Champs Elysee, I only wish the past can be resurrected. Give me the Ugly American any day of the week, rather than his contemporary counterpart.

Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001) and America's Secular Challenge (Encounter Books).

And the Government Wants to Run Health Care!!!

Well, why is everyone surprised? Social Security has admitted that between 8,000 and 10,000 stimulus checks, $250.00 each, have been sent to dead people. That's about $2.5 million!!

Can anyone imagine when the government starts running health care? It's going to be a nightmare. God help us. I suggest that everyone get their yearly checkups and preventive tests before that happens.

Will The American People Allow Socialism?

Reagan's Legacy: Our 25-Year Boom
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Golden Age: After 25 years of record-setting economic performance around the world, set off by President Reagan's free-market policies, the world has fallen into a recession. Is this the inevitable end of an era?

Let's go back to 1982, in many ways the bleakest year since the Depression. The economy had emerged severely damaged by the stagflation of the 1970s. Americans' confidence, both in government and in the economy, had reached a low ebb in 1980. Many felt our best years lay behind us. On the nations' campuses and even in some of its boardrooms, people were talking about capitalism as a failed system. Some advocated a "third way" between socialism and capitalism, as in Europe, which would include heavy doses of government intervention in markets to bring them back to life. Still others took up the call in E.F. Schumacher's best-seller, "Small Is Beautiful," to downsize expectations. Live frugally, they said. Inhabit small houses. Drive small cars. Don't use oil. Rein in your ambitions.

One man didn't agree with this: President Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980 amid a wave of voter disgust at his predecessor's failures. It was Reagan who brought America's capitalist economy roaring back to life, ending energy price controls, slashing income tax rates by 25% and dramatically reducing tax rates on capital gains.

Americans had been told for years — as they're now being told again — to expect diminished standards of living. Then they watched as the Reagan years set in place one of the most durable and remarkable booms in incomes and wealth in history. Yet the media and academia rarely credited Reagan for his accomplishments — especially on the economy, where "Reaganomics" became a term of opprobrium among the intelligentsia.

But it's a fact. As the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research once declared, we lived in the "longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century" from 1982 to 1999 — one big boom, the NBER said, set off by Reagan.

Reagan's magic was simple. He wanted to lower interest rates, slash inflation, cut unemployment and boost economic growth. These things, at the time, seemed impossible. But he did it. The so-called misery index — that is, unemployment plus inflation — hit 21% as Reagan was elected in 1980. By the time his terms were over, it had plunged to around 9%.
Interest rates likewise plunged — contrary to the predictions of many pundits, who boldly predicted that the budget deficits which emerged in the 1980s would send rates spiraling upward. From a stratospheric 21% in 1980, the prime rate fell to 7% by decade's end.
During the 1970s, many Americans for the first time saw incomes shrink. But from 1981 to 1989, median real household income rose by $4,000. The poorest Americans, who saw their incomes fall 5% in the 1970s, watched their incomes rise 6% in the 1980s.

After the staunchly free-market Reagan, things got a bit rocky.

President George H.W. Bush's four years included some mistakes and questionable moves — a record rise in regulations, for one, and the infamous breaking of his "no new taxes" pledge that, after 1991's mild recession, handed the 1992 election to Bill Clinton. President Clinton won largely because he promised change. He had also promised a middle-class tax cut, among other things. But his popularity plunged when, instead of cutting taxes, he raised them by a record amount. That tax hike contributed to one of the slowest economic recoveries from a recession since WWII. The young Arkansan president looked like a one-termer.

But things changed. Slashing defense spending after the collapse of communism (another Reagan victory), Clinton and the new GOP Congress in 1994 started to shrink the deficit. Clinton sounded Reaganesque declaring: "The era of big government is over."

Meanwhile, after raising interest rates in 1994, Fed chief Alan Greenspan began cutting them as inflation and the deficit fell. The economy and the stock market soared. Budget surpluses emerged. The Reagan era's star companies begat the Internet boom; they helped save Clinton's presidency. Two stand out: I n 1993, Intel unveiled its Pentium chip. In 1995, Microsoft released Windows 95.

By 1996, the economy was rocking and so was the stock market. Employing his famous policy of "triangulation," Clinton wisely signed welfare reform into law, bringing millions of people off the dole and into the productive work force, many for the first time. A year later, and with much less fanfare, Clinton signed into law a tax bill produced by the Republican Congress to cut capital gains tax rates. The result was the record boom of 1997 to 2000, the result of which was an unprecedented expansion of wealth. Indeed, this 25-year Reagan boom was the most profoundly democratic era of capitalism ever. In 1980, just 16% of all workers owned stock. By 2000, that had expanded to 52%. Stock ownership moved from Wall Street to Main Street.

Even so, President George W. Bush inherited a mess in 2000. The Nasdaq was at the tail end of a record plunge — which began in 1999 after the Fed aggressively raised rates to quell inflation and end "irrational exuberance." As Bush entered office, the economy was already in recession. Job growth was nil. The 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 cast a pall over the nation's spirit and the economy.

Still, Bush managed to push through two major tax cuts. The second one, in 2003, helped set off a five-year growth spurt that went all but uncovered by the nation's media. What's more, as a backdrop to the Reagan boom, the world's economy likewise moved strongly in a free-market direction, adding more output in the last 25 years than in all of history. In 1980, world GDP was just $11 trillion, World Bank data show. By 2007, it had soared to $54 trillion, the greatest economic surge in history. Hundreds of millions of people were pulled from abject poverty into something resembling a middle-class existence.

Today the question is: Can Reagan's free-market miracle survive? Or was it just a brief interlude of history?

President Obama has presided over the greatest expansion of government in history. Spending on the various bailouts and stimulus programs now totals $4 trillion — about a third of our total national output. And it looks to grow even bigger. He has proposed new taxes and new rules that will put the government's hand into our lives as never before. Expanding government spending from the 50-year average of 20% of GDP or so to as much as 25% will require sweeping new taxes — and not just on the rich.

A shocking new Rasmussen Poll shows that just 53% think capitalism is superior to socialism — despite the fact that socialism, wherever it's been tried, has brought misery and poverty.
So is Reagan's dream of free-market capitalism dead? Or is it just sleeping, as in the 1970s, waiting for a new champion to emerge?

Does President Obama love America?

It's Your Country Too, Mr. President
by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- In his major foreign policy address in Prague committing the United States to a world without nuclear weapons, President Obama took note of North Korea's missile launch just hours earlier and then grandiloquently proclaimed: "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."

A more fatuous presidential call to arms is hard to conceive. What "strong international response" did Obama muster to North Korea's brazen defiance of a Chapter 7 --"binding," as it were -- U.N. resolution prohibiting such a launch?

The obligatory emergency Security Council session produced nothing. No sanctions. No resolution. Not even a statement. China and Russia professed to find no violation whatsoever. They would not even permit a U.N. statement that dared express "concern," let alone condemnation.

Having thus bravely rallied the international community and summoned the U.N. -- a fiction and a farce, respectively -- what was Obama's further response? The very next day, his defense secretary announced drastic cuts in missile defense, including halting further deployment of Alaska-based interceptors designed precisely to shoot down North Korean ICBMs. Such is the "realism" Obama promised to restore to U.S. foreign policy.

He certainly has a vision. Rather than relying on America's unique technological edge in missile defenses to provide a measure of nuclear safety, Obama will instead boldly deploy the force of example. How? By committing his country to disarmament gestures -- such as, he promised his cheering acolytes in Prague, ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Really, now. How does U.S. ratification of that treaty -- which America has, in any case, voluntarily abided by for 17 years -- cause North Korea to cease and desist, and cause Iran to turn nukes into plowshares?

Obama's other great enthusiasm is renewing disarmament talks with Russia. Good grief. Of all the useless sideshows. Cut each of our arsenals in half and both countries could still, in Churchill's immortal phrase, "make the rubble bounce."

There's little harm in engaging in talks about redundant nukes because there is nothing of consequence at stake. But Obama seems not even to understand that these talks are a gift to the Russians for whom a return to anachronistic Reagan-era START talks is a return to the glory of U.S.-Soviet summitry.

I'm not against gift-giving in international relations. But it would be nice to see some reciprocity. Obama was in a giving mood throughout Europe. While Gordon Brown was trying to make his American DVDs work and the queen was rocking to her new iPod, the rest of Europe was enjoying a more fulsome Obama gift.

Our president came bearing a basketful of mea culpas. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own people for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness, for genocide, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantanamo and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world.

And what did he get for this obsessive denigration of his own country?

He wanted more NATO combat troops in Afghanistan to match the surge of 17,000 Americans. He was rudely rebuffed. He wanted more stimulus spending from Europe. He got nothing.
From Russia, he got no help on Iran. From China, he got the blocking of any action on North Korea. And what did he get for Guantanamo? France, pop. 64 million, will take one prisoner. One! ( Sadly, he'll have to leave his swim buddy behind.) The Austrians said they would take none. As Interior Minister Maria Fekter explained with impeccable Germanic logic, if they're not dangerous, why not just keep them in America?

When Austria is mocking you, you're having a bad week. Yet who can blame Frau Fekter, considering the disdain Obama showed his own country while on foreign soil, acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating between his renegade homeland and an otherwise warm and welcoming world? After all, it was Obama, not some envious anti-American leader, who noted with satisfaction that a new financial order is being created today by 20 countries, rather than by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy." And then added: "But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in."

It is passing strange for a world leader to celebrate his own country's decline. A few more such overseas tours, and Obama will have a lot more decline to celebrate.

A Dangerous Man

Who Is Harold Koh?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:20 PM PT

President Obama's nominee for State Department legal adviser could be a future Supreme Court pick. He believes U.S. law should be based on foreign precedent, and even Shariah law could find a home here.

... a former dean of Yale Law School ... He's an advocate of what he calls "transnational legal process" and argues that the distinction between U.S. and international law should vanish. Read more

Mr. Koh is a strong advocate of abortion.

Divorce From Liberals

This wonderful letter, written by a brilliant American law student, was sent to me by my sister via e-mail.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement: Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (you are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood . You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.

When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World. We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

Betraying Our Friends

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY - Posted Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Appeasing Russia to "solve" Iran's nuclear ambitions is not the only disconcerting feature of President Obama's approach to the world. Vital friends and allies are getting America's cold shoulder.

What sense does it make that after Ronald Reagan wins the Cold War by refusing to abandon missile defense, the United States offers it as a bargaining chip to an increasingly menacing post-Communist Russia?

And where is the wisdom in withdrawing plans to use missile defense to protect the liberated former Eastern Bloc states against a Russian aggressor willing to wage war with the former Soviet state of Georgia and use the Ukrainian pipeline to starve Europeans of natural gas — all to prevent its former satellites from aligning with the free West? Is it any wonder that the Poles and the Czechs — who have only known freedom for a short time — now long for the days of President George W. Bush, a president willing to help them defend their liberty against aggression?

Our young, new president has reportedly written a secret letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev offering to give away the proposed missile shield if Moscow helps stop Iran from building long-range nuclear weapons. Barack Obama supposedly had 300 foreign policy advisers during his presidential campaign. Couldn't one of them have told him that it was Russia who provided Iran with nuclear experts, gave Iran technical information stolen from the West by Russian spies, and is building and delivering fuel for Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant? Has it ever crossed the president's mind that letting Iran give terrorists nuclear bombs to incinerate an American or Western European city might be in Russia's long-term geopolitical interest?

Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman's newly published history of the bomb, "The Nuclear Express," calls post-cold war China — another facilitator of Iran's nuclear program — "a fearsome global competitor with interests that could be well served by the devastation of Washington or New York . . . ." The same surely applies to Vladimir Putin's Russia.

As the president mulled giving away the store to the Russians, he hosted British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the White House Tuesday, claiming that the U.S.-U.K. "special relationship" is getting more special all the time. But the big-spending, tax-raising Brown is well to the left of his predecessor Tony Blair, and the Scot has been a dyed-in-the-wool socialist all his life, writing a 1975 "Red Paper for Scotland" demanding "a positive commitment to creating a socialist society." The president and Brown are joining forces to establish an unprecedented "global new deal" that would impose stringent new bank regulations on industrialized nations.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Tuesday with newly elected Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu and pushed for the establishment of a Palestinian state right at a time when Israelis — suffering continual Palestinian rocket fire — have gone to the polls to place security before the "peace process."

To our south, the Obama administration is jeopardizing our relationship with Colombia over misguided Carteresque human rights quibbles after America has helped that nation make strides in its war against drug cartels — and at a time when the Pentagon reports that Mexico may suffer a "rapid and sudden collapse." A recent Joint Forces Command analysis warns: "(Mexican) politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state." In spite of that dire prospect just across our border, the administration and Congress are foot-dragging on ratification of the Colombian trade pact and funds to continue opposing the drug traffickers and Colombia's leftist insurgency. With Venezuela's Hugo Chavez aligned with Iran and the Castro regime still in business in Cuba, what friend will we have in Latin America if we shun President Alvaro Uribe's government in Colombia?

Barack Obama promised in his campaign to change the world. He never mentioned he would do it by acting against our best allies and partners around the globe — friends we need, and who need us, to stay free and secure.

How "This Mess" (Obama's words) Started -- In Case You Didn't Know

This article, sent to me by a friend via e-mail, hits the nail right on the head.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending By Steven A. Holmes - (Published: New York Times, Thursday, September 30, 1999)

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings. Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent. In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent. Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

A Story of Three Traitors

BENEDICT ARNOLDS OF THE GOP By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on February 10, 2009

Because of the concentrated efforts of millions of Republicans all over America, Susan Collins (Maine) was reelected to the Senate, surviving a challenge once thought to be serious. She won, in large part, because she was able to drown her Democratic adversary in a sea of campaign spending made possible by donations from Republicans throughout the nation. As a result of their efforts, the GOP preserved its 40th vote in the Senate.

And when Saxby Chambliss was forced into a runoff in the Georgia Senate race, Republicans from all over the United States poured out their hearts and their funds to get him reelected, all to save the 41st vote and be able to filibuster Democrats' big spending proposals.

Now the actions of three people who told their voters that they were Republicans have eliminated any hope that the GOP has for influence during the next two years. By making their own deals with the Obama administration and settling for cosmetic improvements in the so-called stimulus package, Sens. Collins, Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) have sold out their party, their state and their supporters.

Don't buy their excuse that they shaved more than one hundred billion dollars in spending from the Senate version. By the time the Senate/House conference reconciles the differences between the versions of the legislation passed by the two houses, most of that spending will be back in the law anyway.

Collins, Snowe and Specter had a chance to send a message to Obama that he had to deal with the Republican Party to avert a filibuster. They could have made it clear that genuine bipartisan cooperation was necessary to pass legislation. These three senators, pledged to cut taxes and oppose massive growth in federal spending, could have demanded a 2-to-1 ratio for tax cuts over spending, rather than the reverse, as Obama is succeeding in getting.

Instead, the three wimped out and caved in for peanuts from Obama. In doing so, they completely stripped their party of any leverage. There was no point in having gotten 41 votes if the three weakest links could sell the party out.

This stimulus package will:

• Hurt economic recovery by elbowing aside private borrowers and consumers as the government goes to the front of the line to borrow adequate funds to cover its deficit.

• Invite massive inflation in the future as consumers and businesspeople sit on most of the money until times improve. Then, when confidence begins to return -- no thanks to the stimulus package -- they will deluge the economy with money, triggering massive inflation.

• Expand government and spend borrowed money on projects that may have some long-term merit but are scarcely our top priority right now.

Republicans in Maine and Pennsylvania need to learn their lesson and assure that these three senators face a primary. Real conservatives, who oppose larger government, must stand up to these three phony Republicans.

They'll get their chance. Specter is up for reelection in 2010. He should have been defeated in 2006 when a real conservative, Pat Toomey, opposed him in a primary and only narrowly lost. Better luck next time.

The very concept of checks and balances evaporated last week on Capitol Hill when these three senators sold out their colleagues and stripped their conference of its power. Now Obama can buy off the GOP senator by senator without having to make genuine compromises with the other party to pass his agenda.

In 1993, Clinton was not able to buy Republicans retail. Only Vermont's Jim Jeffords, who soon became a Democrat, gave way and dealt independently with the president. Now, with their backs to the wall, facing a spending package that will consign America to rampant inflation, massive debt and continued recession, these three senators have gone back on their most fundamental pledge to their constituents -- to act in the public good.

The Stimulus Bill Passes

The bill passed with the expected votes from Republican senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine and Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania. Does this mean that this vote is "bipartisan"? Hardly; these senators, who call themselves "moderate" republicans, may as well switch parties based on their voting history. These three republicans indicated that they were voting yes because the democrats had changed and reduced the bill by $100 billion. But the Senate democrats had raised the $819 billion House bill by $100 billion. So the final Senate bill of $834 billion ends being slightly more than the $819 billion House bill. Is the new bill a different bill? Who knows? It is not easy to sift through the text of either the House or the Senate bill.

Regardless of the differences there may be between the two bills, the final version will still be the huge spending bill that Obama wants. Bill O'Reilly and others in the media are asking how it is that Obama has allowed Nancy Pelosi to get away with a bill full of the usual Congress pet projects. As if Obama had nothing to do with the contents of this legislation! Let’s not kid ourselves. This is the bill that Mr. Obama has wanted; he asked for these items. One has only to read his inaugural address and his Agenda, which includes The President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan in the White House website. If you read this plan and compare it to the stimulus bill you will see how the bill follows Mr. Obama's plan. Here are some some examples:

Obama's Plan: 95% of working families will receive a $1,000 tax cut
Stimulus Bill: $275 billion: Payroll tax cuts ($500 for each individual, $1000 for couples)

Obama's Plan: double the production of alternative energy in the next three years
Stimulus Bill: $20 billion for renewable energy tax cuts

Obama's Plan: modernize more than 75% of federal buildings
Stimulus Bill: $6.7 billion to renovate and improve energy efficiency at federal buildings.

Obama's Plan: improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes
Stimulus Bill: $6 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes

Obama's Plan: ensure that all of America’s medical records are computerized
Stimulus Bill: $20 billion for health information technology, including electronic medical records

Obama's Plan: save the public sector jobs of teachers, cops, firefighters and others who provide vital services.
Stimulus Bill: $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cutbacks to key services

Obama's Plan: Equip tens of thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries
Stimulus Bill: $41 billion to local school districts through Title I; $6 billion for higher education modernization

Obama's Plan: Help Americans who have lost their jobs with extensions of unemployment insurance and healthcare coverage
Stimulus Bill: $39 billion for short-term Medicaid insurance and Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) subsidy

Now, some of these pet/pork items perhaps were not requested by Obama, but he has not asked Congress to change the bill or to remove these items. The following are some of many in this bill. Are any job-producing, other than temporary, one-project jobs? What happens to the jobs when each of these projects is completed?

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $650 million for wild land fire management on forest service lands.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations

This bill has probably been in the works by the Obama people since the beginning of the campaign. The Agenda has been carefully planned. Obama is smartly executing his plan as soon as possible before he loses popularity.

Some Details of the Stimulus Bill

$ 44 million for repairs at the Agriculture Department headquarters in Washington.
$200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall.
$360 million for new child care centers at military bases.
$1.8 billion to repair National Park Service facilities.
$276 million to update technology at the State Department.
$500 million for the Transportation Security Administration to install bomb detectors at airports.
$600 million for General Services Administration to replace older vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles.
$2.5 billion to upgrade low-income housing.
$400 million for NASA scientists to conduct climate change research.
$426 million to construct facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
$800 million to clean up Superfund sites.
$150 million for the Coast Guard to repair or remove bridges deemed a hazard to navigation.
$6.7 billion to renovate and improve energy efficiency at federal buildings.
$400 million to replace the Social Security Administration's 30-year-old National Computer Center.

The Stimulus(?) Package

What a week so far! Today we saw the Master of Disguise at his best. On January 9 our President spoke at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia about the economy and said: "only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe... Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy". Today, at a session with 13 CEO's at the White House, he addressed the press and said: "In the end, the answer to our economic troubles rests less in my hands, or in the hands of our legislators, than it does with America's workers and the businesses that employ them. They are the ones whose efforts and ideas will determine our economic destiny, just as they always have." Wait, is he changing his tune? Is he tacking right?

Mr. Obama does not need the Republican votes to pass this bill. But why do the Democrats want this vote to be bipartisan? Could it be, as Rush Limbaugh has suggested, that the Democrats know that this package won't work? That their purpose is to garner votes from the people that are benefiting and not to stimulate the economy and create jobs? So, knowing that the package won't work they want the Republicans in it so that they can all share in the travesty.

As I write this post the bill passed with no Republican votes. Way to go, Republicans! Now the Republican Senators must hold their own. They must hold firm and demand that the bill be changed. That's the only way they can derail this train. For our part we must contact our Senators and let them know that we do not accept this package the way it is. The country is going to incur a huge debt. Let's put the money where it will do the job.

Conservatives are gaining momentum and they must maintain it. They need to get this bill changed.

You can see a summary spreadsheet of this bill, but the devil is in the details. Subsequent posts will break down each category into smaller items that show where this money is really going and that these projects are just run-of-the-mill Congress earmarks. This is a spending, not a stimulus bill: $102 billion for unemployment benefits with $20 billion increase in food stamps? And how about $41 billion for school modernization, $39 billion for school "services", whatever that is, $25 billion for other "high-priority" school needs and $87 billion increase in Medicaid, most of it probably going to illegal aliens? Are these projects job-creating? Will they stimulate the economy? I doubt it...

A Parallel

Havana, Cuba, January, 1959 - Washington, D.C., January, 2009. Fifty years have elapsed, but last Tuesday brought me back to that time in January, 1959 when Fidel stood in front of the adoring, cheering crowds and made promises of true democracy, adherence to the Constitution, and prompt elections. His words were full of inspiration, as when he said: ".... The people of Cuba are wholly united today as never before in defense of their rights, above partisan considerations, because here the parties are finished, here only the fatherland counts..." And the people chanted: Fidel! Fidel! Fidel!... And it is true. That first week he had everyone with him. Everyone was ready to give all their support to this new leader that was offering a bright future. But he betrayed the Cuban people. He took advantage of their faith and commitment, their cooperation, their trust and gradually changed everything. The Cuban people wanted a law-abiding government that would respect the people and the Constitution. The change they got was not what they fought for.

The regime gradually became the communist regime that it always had intended to be and gradually appropriated all the means of production. Private businesses ended up managed by government bureaucrats, who not only worked for a salary and did not care, but who did not know how to run the businesses they were managing. Eventually Cuban businesses, crops, industries were destroyed. From having one of the highest ranks in social and economic indicators in Latin America in 1959 (Cuba's Builders of Wealth Prior to 1959 ) Cuba today has lost most of its agricultural production, and public and industrial infrastructure. For years the Cuban people have been under food rationing and living in the worst of conditions. That is what the Castro regime has to show for their years of communist bureaucracy.

Many Cubans left for other countries, mainly the U.S. Today they see another leader, full of promises, who speaks of change. Let us learn from History and be very watchful of those who promise change but who do not explain what the change is about. Let's not wake up one day and say: How did I miss what was happening!? Then, it may be too late and where can we go? There may be no place else and, sadly, we will have just ourselves to blame.

View From Across The Pond

I received this insightful and well written article from my sister via e-mail . It has appeared on many blogs and websites, so some may have read it.

Obama's Victory - A British View - (London Daily Mail - Wednesday, January 21, 2009)

A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere.

A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.

A victory for Hollywood, the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.

Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition.

A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.

A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.

Congratulations America!

The Inauguration

It's a welcome coincidence that the start-up of my blog is the beginning of a new administration. I think I am going to enjoy using my soapbox. What best theme to begin with than with the inauguration?

This inauguration is a lavish, spare-no-expense inauguration. The estimated cost is $170 million. I have not heard the media object to this price tag, even though eight years ago the $45 million cost of President Bush's inauguration raised cries of shock. Previously, Bill Clinton's had an est. price tag of $25 - $30 million. So, we are talking here of a 277% increase over the most expensive inauguration, at a time when billions of dollars are being spent on bailouts by the fed. Well, what's $150 million compared to billions?

I have read that Obama's speech will center around responsibility. He is going to preach about government responsibility, Wall Street accountability and individual sacrifice. Now, that sounds really nice. But how about "teaching by example"? If we are asked to sacrifice (what this means has not been explained yet) how about the government sacrificing too? How about the government being accountable and facing up to the facts?

We all know that it was the Barney Frank's, Chris Dodd's and Chuck Schumer's who, by forcing banks to approve mortgaqes with extremely low down payments to first time buyers with questionable incomes and financing capabilities, caused this financial crisis. However they, together with the liberal media, are trying to pin the blame on President Bush who, since 2001 tried to get Congress to reverse their policy with a reform of the financial institutions. We also know that those efforts were blocked by Frank and Dodd. Now instead, their "fix" will burden the taxpayer with a bailout bill of $700 billion plus a "stimulus" (earmarks?) package of possibly over $1 trillion. Will we see transparency? Will we see responsibility, accountability and sacrifice in the spending of these funds? Well, this inauguration may be a preview of things to come?