Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

As president elect Obama rolled into Washington to await his coronation on next Tuesday. Many people are making comparisons and analogies to President Lincoln. I guess since Obama is partly Black, and Lincoln freed the slaves by waging a war that killed over 600,000 brothers, sisters, uncles and cousins in the un-Civil war,there is a comparison if you stretch your imagination far enough.

The Obama transition team and the willing accomplice Media seem to want the public to think that the "Great Emancipator" has once again arrived in Washington DC. But there are too many dis-similar traits between Obama and Lincoln and the the way they both looked at America to believe there is any similarity.

Lincoln waged the assault on the South to keep the Nation together. He believed in the status quo. In fact history shows that slavery was not on his mind until after the war between the States was well under way! He wanted to save the Union!

Obama.in my opinion, wants to destroy the status quo. He and his wife (she even said it publicly) do not believe the Country is something that they can be proud of in it's present form. They come to Washington to radically change things, and from what I have heard from his own lips. I do not like what he is intending to do!
In fact, I believe , that when he takes the oath of office for the Presidency, he will, I believe, be lying if you can believe his own words(said on his way to Washington) about Our Constitution?
Invoking hope and history, President-elect Barack Obama rolled into the capital city Saturday night pledging to help bring the nation "a new Declaration of Independence" and promising to rise to the stern challenges of the times.
At the War Memorial Plaza in Baltimore, Obama called on Americans to take up anew the principles of the nation's Founders, capping the inspirational message of the journey to Washington with a call for "a new declaration of independence." Source:Breitbart.com

"We are here today not simply to pay tribute to our first patriots but to take up the work that they began. And yet while our problems may be new, what is required to overcome them is not. What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that our founders displayed. What is required is a new declaration of independence not just in our nation, but in our own lives..independence from ideology…

We should not forget we are the heirs of those who declared independence…and who somehow believed that they had the power to make the world anew, that’s the spirit we must reclaim …for the American Revolution did not end when the British guns fell silent…it was never something to be ended on a battlefield, or fulfilled in our founding documents…the American Revolution was and remains an ongoing struggle in the minds and hearts of the people…so starting now, let’s take up in our own lives, the work of perfecting our Union. Let’s build a government…let all of us do our part to rebuild this country , let’s make sure this election is not the end of what we do to change America, but just the beginning.”
Later in another city, he made reference to the need for our Constitution to be rewritten as “more perfect”.

Who gets to define that? And why is that definition expected to be better than the definition left us by the Founding Fathers?

I believe that Obama has Socialism on his mind, and most everything he proposes to do are involved with making an already Big government, BIGGER!

One such example is the mess that has resulted in the TARP deal. The whole bail out scheme was sold to the American public as a way to pump more money into Banks so they would loan it to taxpayers who desperately need the loans. But apparently that is not what has happened, nor is it the intention of the recipients of the billions of dollars in taxpayers money to help the "little guy"!

The following is and excerpt from the Los Angeles Times article.

"as mounting losses at major banks like Citigroup and Bank of America in the last week have underscored, regulators are still searching for ways to stabilize the banking system. The Obama administration could be forced early on to come up with a systemic solution, getting bad loans off balance sheets as a way to encourage banks to begin lending, which most economists say is essential to get businesses and consumers spending again.

In U.S., the new frugality has unintended consequences
Individually, banks that received some of the first $350 billion from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, have offered few public details about how they plan to spend the money, and they are not required to disclose what they do with it. But in conversations behind closed doors with investment analysts, some bankers have been candid about their intentions.

Most of the banks that received the money are far smaller than behemoths like Citigroup or Bank of America. A review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen banks around the country found that few cited lending as a priority. An overwhelming majority saw the bailout program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future.

Speaking at the FBR Capital Markets conference in New York in December, Walter Pressey, president of Boston Private Wealth Management, a healthy bank with a mostly affluent clientele, said there were no immediate plans to do much with the $154 million it received from the Treasury.

"With that capital in hand, not only do we feel comfortable that we can ride out the recession," he said, "but we also feel that we'll be in a position to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves once this recession is sorted out." Not a word about doing something to help the people who need money to stay in their homes or keep the small business they own from going under. The "fat cats" get the money and the taxpayer gets the "shaft"!

Where is the CHANGE in that?

Not only the impending threat of Iran's gaining nuclear weapons capability in the next year, but the threat of North Korea attacking South Korea,hangs in the balance.

Afghanistan seems to be the "chosen one's" target for military action if at all, but one cannot ignore the possibility that the Koreans and the Iranians realize Obama's disdain for force of arms, and take advantage of his preference to talk to our enemies, to advance their military ambitions.
What will Obama do if Communist China threatens to launch nuclear weapons against Taiwan if it does not swear allegiance to the Chinese? Or if the Koreans are not just bluffing, and do advance south of the demilitarised zone while launching ICBMs on Seoul?

And it not entirely impossible that Putin will invade the Ukraine with his tanks and ground forces as he did recently, into The oil-rich region of Georgia, and earlier into Chechnya, between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea,that forms a southwestern corridor of Russian territory. Will Obama give aid to the Ukrainians as Bush did for Georgia?

WE are replacing a "hawk" with a "dove", and apparently the Media and a little more than 50% of Americans are ecstatic about the CHANGE!
But will a "peacenik" Commander in Chief be able to talk those who await the "talker" with baited breath, be able to negotiate the peace we have had here at home, even while we waged a war in Iraq? Or will the despots take advantage of the advance warnings that Obama is anti-war and begin there quest for power over the geography they covet?

This story out of Great Britain, illustrates the potential for a hot spot flaming up again after over fifty years of Cease Fire!


The Guardian,UK. Is reporting "that North Korea today, threatened to "shatter" the conservative South Korean government in Seoul, as reports emerged that Pyongyang claims to have weaponised enough plutonium stocks to produce four or five nuclear bombs.

Relations across the heavily fortified border have turned frosty since South Korea's president, Lee Myung-bak, came to office last year promising to get tough on his communist neighbour after a decade of attempts by liberal governments to engage with Pyongyang. In December, North Korea closed border crossings and accused Seoul of plotting to assassinate the North's leader, Kim Jong-il.

But today's rare statement from the Korean People's Army – read on television by a uniformed officer – is likely to further raise tensions on the divided peninsula.

"Now that traitor Lee Myung-bak and his group opted for confrontation, denying national reconciliation and cooperation, backed by foreign forces, our revolutionary armed forces are compelled to take an all-out confrontational posture to shatter them," the statement said.

"Strong military measures will follow from our revolutionary armed forces," the spokesman added, warning of a clash along a disputed maritime border. Disagreements over the boundary triggered naval skirmishes in 1999 and 2000.

The statement came as an American scholar said North Korean officials had told him Pyongyang has weaponised 30.8 kg (68lb) of plutonium, enough for four or five bombs.

Selig Harrison, a North Korean expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, said the North Koreans had told him the weapons cannot be inspected.

The officials were vague about what weaponisation meant, but it appeared most likely the plutonium would be fitted in missile warheads, Harrison said."

Is now the time when our resolve to defend all freedom loving Countries from aggression to be tested? And will we fail to respond?