Monday, March 30, 2009

Will A Stand Be Taken Before It's Too Late

Does anyone else remember Obama's curt response when asked if he was in favor of a global currency? "No, I don't see a need for a global currency. Next question."

Has he been in contact with Geithner lately? When asked by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, "Would you categorically renounce the United States moving away from the dollar and going to a global currency as suggested by China and also by Russia?" Geithner replied, "I would, yes." The Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke sung the same as Geithner. Geithner has pledged to work with his European counterparts on a new framework to govern the global financial sector prior to his participation in the G20 summit on Thursday. Geithner has also said if the dollar doesn't rebound Washington is open to a global reserve currency run by the International Monetary Fund. Doesn't sound like Obama and Geithner are on the same page. They're on the same page alright. One of them just wasn't supposed to spill the beans. Thanks for the heads up. I only hope the American public will use Geithner's verbal slippage to its advantage to help stand for this nation's sovereignty. A global currency may seem like a good idea on the surface but it would hand our monetary policy over to an entity we don't control.

Let's look at the European Union. The European Commission makes it next to impossible for the members of the European Union to fully understand each individual item that it passes with its continuous influx of laws. Sounds reminescent of Obama's stimulus plan. Let's hurry and get it passed before everyone realizes what they've actually okayed. Each sounds like a fantastic way towards a New World Order type of government.

Monday, March 23, 2009

More of the Same Blame Game

Last night's recurring theme that I picked up on during Obama's interview on 60 Minutes was 'Let's draw negative attention away from me'. This theme was a constant throughout his candidacy and nothing has changed with that theme throughout his Presidency thus far.
Obama made sure to let everyone know, if we hadn't heard it before, during his interview that 'this is the legacy of the past administration that's been inherited' and trying to toss back the negativity ball on the Bush administration.
Is it just me or does it remind anyone else of when you were a child and being scolded and your reaction was to point out something wrong your sibling did? What did your parent or teacher usually say? Something along the line of "We're talking about YOU, not your (brother) (sister) (etc.),"right? When is our President going to start acting like a President and quit pointing the finger, start answering the questions that are asked of him, not react to opposition like someone in a school yard with a juvenile thuggish remark such as "bring it on" and "he'll tear him apart", and try not giggling when it comes to talking about the demise of our auto industry?
You're the leader of the United States. Please try to act like it.
Perhaps Mary Kate Cary said it best: The president sets the tone of the conversation in America. As much as President Obama would like to be a man of the people, "a regular guy," he's not anymore. His job description encompasses being Commander-in-Chief, leader of the Executive Branch of government, and Head of State. He's "The Leader of the Free World." Doing Jay Leno lessens the stature of the office, and diminishes the man. On Leno, he becomes just one more talk show guest, a celebrity on the circuit promoting his latest movie or book. It's a decision that speaks volumes about Obama's approach to the office. For that matter, so does his signing of op-eds about specific legislation in newspapers and his picking fights with radio talk show hosts...
What a sad statement it makes of our nation that our President and those running for office feel the need to reach the American public by going on celebrity talk shows. We are a bunch of citizens more interested in being entertained than being educated.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Civil War On the Horizon?

Political Science Professor Igor Panarin predicted the breakup of the U.S. back in 1998. His predictions were aimed at the year 2010. He based his predictions on the U.S. mass immigration, economic decline, and social and political conflicts.

Panarin believes the U.S. will break into five or six regions divided by racial and cultural lines spurred on by the collapse of our financial system. According to Panarin, he foresees the wealthier sections of the country to withold funds from the federal government, effectively causing states to secede from the union. It is at this point he believes social unrest will arise resulting in a civil war that will ultimately allow foreign powers to move in. Panarin goes so far as to predict how sections or states of the U.S. will be divided and under what foreign powers they will be controlled. Panarin predicts that American elites will be split into two warring factions: Globalists representing international financial interests and Statists representing manufacturing and the military with the prosperity of their country in mind.

Panarin sees this civil war being triggered by the U.S. failing to honor its own currency. How could this happen you ask? According to Panarin, a secret agreement was made in 2006 between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to implement the 'Amero' as a new currency unit. Current U.S. money could be "frozen" by using an excuse as simple as terrorists having made false notes which need to be checked.

As recently as November 2008 The Drudge Report reported on Panarin's predictions. A month later The Wall Street Journal (followed up by U.S. News and World Report) ridiculed those predictions. Back in the news today, The Huffington Post made those predictions news again today. Ridicule aside, could there possibly be some truth to what Panarin has said?

Millions of citizens have lost their savings, prices of goods continue to increase, unemployment keeps growing with entire towns unemployed, corporations are collapsing, and governors are demanding money from the federal center. Is it likely Obama's economic recovery plan will work?

What say you?

Monday, March 9, 2009

Business Owners, Employees and HR Generalists Beware

Obama has promised that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will become law. The EFCA was sponsored by Obama and is expected to be introduced sometime this year in the Senate. If that doesn't concern you, here are a few other bills sponsored by Obama that may. Let's hope these don't come to fruition:

"The Working Families Flexibility Act"
This act would require that when an employer denies an employee's request regarding a change in working conditions, the employee will have rights to challenge the decision through a series of escalation from employer to administrative law judge hearings, ultimately ending in federal court. It is the burden of the employer to prove that the denial of request is justified. A change in working conditions is an employee's request for a change in work hours, start and end times, and location of work.

"Protecting America's Worker Act"
An act that will increase OSHA penalties, impose significant mandatory sentences, and allow criminal penalties for non-fatal incidents.

"Healthy Families Act"
This act will require companies with more than 15 employees to provide 7 annual sick days. Employers cannot use the excuse that sick days are already provided, they will be required to add an additional 7 to the already exsisting sick days.

"The Paycheck Fairness Act"
This act would make it illegal for any employer to prohibit or discourage employees from sharing salary information. It also limits an employers defenses to EPA claims, uncaps damages for both punitive and compensatory, and eases restrictions on class action suits.

Monday, March 2, 2009

Strings Attached

Citigroup took over Merril Lynch. Citigroup didn't want to take the bailout money but were forced to by the government once it was found out how in debt Merril Lynch was. It's scary to think that the government is forcing their bailout money on businesses. Will Bank of America also be forced by the government to take the bailout money? So why is it that Citigroup didn't want to take the money? Because of all the government regulations tied to that money. You take the money, you are beholden to what Obama wants for this country. He is on the path to destruction of our businesses (large and small). He is squashing entrepreneurship, just another way to move from capitalism to socialism.

Obama claims he will cut our deficit in half within his first term in office yet doesn't say how he's going to do it. It just sounds good. Like all his speeches. It sounds good. He throws a little "preacher voice" in for good measure and the sheep gobble it up. Making the masses buy the load of what you know to be crap is just half the battle. Can someone tell me how you get out of a deficit by spending?! Is that how you get out of credit card debt? Charge more?