President Obama and Republican Congressional Leaders meet

As the Earmark Ban failed in the Senate today, Republican Congressional leaders met with President Obama to try and resolve differences over the Bush era tax cuts. Both the President and Republicans called the meeting 'very productive'. Maybe the President is trying to make an effort?

While Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell specifically stated that they were against any tax increases from when the rates were established in 2001 and 2003 which were set to expire at the end of this year, President Obama went on to say that he would oppose any permanent extension of tax cuts to individuals making more than $200,000, and $250,000 for couples.

While it should be somewhat of a good compliment to President Obama that he is working with Republicans, and even announced yesterday a freeze on pay to Federal Government workers who earn ridiculous salaries and pension funds, Republicans in the House seem to be tied with working on solutions in the coming year ahead, while trying to find a compromise in the Democratic controlled Senate.

Many Republicans would like to see the controversial Health Care Law that was shoved down the throats of every single American repealed, but don't beat on that. Democrats in the Senate have already made their decision on that and are standing firm, not to mention having it vetoed by President Obama, and it is unlikely that Congress would get a 2/3 majority vote to over-ride the President's power.

But obviously, the Health Care Law and future taxes will start coming into fruition and will need to be discussed extensively in Congress, not to mention trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities including Social Security and Medicare, and let's not forget about our $14 trillion and growing national debt that everyone is also suppose to pay back (at least that is what our Federal Government expects us to do, even though it will never be repaid).

Where is all of this money going to come from?

People are sick and tired of being taxed to death in this country, but somewhere along the line, they'll have to find the money, won't they?

U.S. documents leaked

On Sunday,  an online whistle blowing organization known as WikiLeaks, were able to get their hands on hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. State Department secret memos and documents which detailed relationships and diplomacy, particularly in the Middle East.

The details of some of these secret documents centered around countries such as Saudi Arabia,  apparently trying to pressure the U.S. to take action against Iran and its nuclear program; additionally, there was also major concern to get the U.S. to move on problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan, centering around al-Qaeda; as well as growing discontent in North Korea. WikiLeaks went on to say that they were quite surprised by the level of espionage that the U.S. is engaging in, after analyzing the documents in full.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated in a press conference this afternoon, that the U.S. would take 'aggressive steps' in finding those responsible for leaking the documents.

To be quite frank, I'm actually glad that Wikileaks released the documents which they claim more than half were unclassified anyway. Whether or not they actually where does not really concern me, but rather the U.S. Government continued ability to remain secretive about issues when it comes to foreign policy. Americans are already angry and fed up with things they're not supposed to know anything about,  so Americans knowing some of these so called 'classified' memos would be more comforting, rather than finding out later on that these things were kept behind closed doors and kept away from the American people which would make everyone, probably twice as angry.

Do we need to re-analyze the Bush Administration's policies that were kept from the American people?

The release of these documents are an embarrassment to the Obama Administration, and rightfully so. This President campaigned on the objective that he would provide more openness and transparency in Government and set up a stronger dialogue with the American people. 

I think a majority of Americans now realize that was obviously a false pretense, and he can add this to his list that has exposed him as nothing more than a pathological liar. 

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

TSA inspections despicable among travelers

The new measures enacted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at airports nationwide have become the talk of controversy over the last few weeks. Today, more than two million people will be traveling the day before Thanksgiving and will have to endure these new measures which include body-scanning machines and rather intrusive and intimate pat-downs by TSA agents.

I’d just like to say how thankful I am that I will not be in that crowd today.

Travelers are not happy with the new body-scanning machines because TSA agents are allowed to basically see people on “this side” of being completely nude; and the pat-downs they are finding as a simple violation of privacy rights.

Some of the outrageous and embarrassing stories among travelers that have surfaced recently include a breast cancer survivor having to remove her prosthetic breast during a TSA inspection; a victim of sexual assault, felt the pat-down so intrusive she felt that she was being assaulted all over again; another TSA agent broke the bag of a bladder cancer patient, leaving him soaked in his own urine; a three year old child was forced to surrender her teddy bear, to endure a full body pat-down; and on the more comical front, a guy stripped all the way down to his boxer shorts to avoid even being touched by an agent. The searches by the TSA are beyond despicable.

Interestingly, Government officials are apparently exempt from having to endure any of this airport nonsense. But what is more interesting is the conflict of interest between Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security Secretary and his relationship with consulting to Rapiscan Systems, one of two companies designing the new body-scan systems at airports. Chertoff, and some of our top legislators including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware have monetary stakes in Rapiscan. Senator Kerry apparently has a value between $500,000 and $1 million in the scanning corporation, while Congressman Castle has about $65,000.

One has to ask the question if our federal legislators are actually supporting national security, or simply just going with the flow to make a fast buck on the process? Maybe they should rename Rapiscan Systems as “Grab and Scan”.

During a breakfast meeting with the Christian Science Monitor, TSA chief administrator John Pistole is quoted as saying “if passengers don’t undergo screening, then they don’t have a right to fly. I see flying as a privilege that is a public safety issue.” Apparently Mr. Pistole has never read 49 USC Section 40103, Provision II which clearly spells out “a citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through navigational airspace.”

Now the TSA of course will continue to insist that it is simply enhancing safety in national security in airports, while taking into consideration privacy among travelers. Is that right?

Did the TSA ever take into consideration other alternative solutions? Maybe, adopting the same model that enforced airport security in Israel, which was profiling passengers? Or what about bomb-sniffing dogs at airports?

Oh, I forgot, we can’t have bomb trained dogs at airports because that would mean a TSA agent wouldn’t get a huge paycheck, benefits and a largely inflated pension fund, paid for kindly, with American tax payer money.

Nevertheless, a majority of Americans have found new measures from the TSA as too extreme, and today, people nationwide are revolting and will be voicing their concerns by boycotting many airports.

Tension between North and South Korea

Just two days after the discovery of its enriched uranium for its nuclear program, the hostile dictatorship of North Korea fired artillery against South Korea earlier today, for about an hour on the island of Yeonpyeong. The attack left two South Korean marines dead, and left 16 wounded including soldiers and civilians. It is probably the deadliest attack between the two discontent countries in over fifty years.

In a country where people are brainwashed, shut off from the rest of the world, cell phones and computers banned, no economy, no food, citizens are thrown in concentration camps and suffer from disease and starvation, one would wonder how North Korea is so powerful? One of those factors is primarily its communist dictatorship run by Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Il, and their ability to have acquired technology from the now-defunct Soviet Union, and have grown its men into the fourth largest standing army in the world.

The more friendly, U.S. backed South Korea has responded to the attacks by putting its military on high alert, while North Korea has indicated that if any further retaliation, serious consequences will follow. The situation between the two Koreas seems to be tittering on the brink of getting very out of hand. For one, South Korea knows that North Korea is not exactly a country to fool around with and will be destroyed, prompting intervention from American forces; and secondly, if another Korean war does occur, most likely China will cease from providing food and investment to North Korea, since they have relayed heavily on China due to Kim Jong-Il’s dictatorial leadership.

The United States has condemned the attacks, and President Obama is apparently ‘outraged’ and the six party talks between the U.S., North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and China, have stalled. But why he is outraged, remains unclear, since it should not be any surprise to anyone that North Korea has been secretly planning assaults against South Korea since basically the end of World War II, and there have been minor attacks taken place several times over the last fifty years.

Most likely, as violence increases from North Korea, the United States will enforce sanctions against North Korea, which of course, will do absolutely nothing.

Is Obama keeping U.S. safe from a “new” nuclear war and terror?

What is obviously continuing to be an escalating global threat, it was confirmed yesterday that North Korea has enriched uranium for its nuclear facilities. The news apparently sent shockwaves through Washington, yet some U.S. Officials were not entirely surprised by the situation… Well, the ones that were not surprised, at least understand that we’ve only been warned about North Korea’s anticipated progress on advancing its nuclear ambitions for fifteen years, or more. Yet nothing was ever done, except sign a piece of paper with the United Nations.

Back in June 2009 while in France, President Obama was asked at a press conference about North Korea and its relationship with Iran concerning their nuclear ambitions. The President seemed rather evasive on addressing the issue and could not clearly answer the United States’ policy with North Korea specifically, although he ended his statement by saying:

“I don’t think that there should be an assumption, that we will simply continue down a path in which North Korea is constantly destabilizing the region, and we just react the same ways by after they do these things after a while, we reward them.”

Well, why don’t we stop assuming Mr. President? After all, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il has shown a clear defiance all this time, and violated its resolution with the United Nations. That should be enough of an indicator that they are one step further in expanding their program.

But North Korea, continuing its nuclear plans is just the tip of the iceberg. The United States has feared North Korea intention to sell missiles and nuclear technology to Iran. Even more terrifying, is the notion of North Korea ,possibly one day selling any of its nuclear programs to al-Qaeda, something that the terrorist network would absolutely love to get its hands on.

Iran has actually continued its operations out of the Middle East, in moving forward in establishing their nuclear plans. Now, the country is apparently mining for uranium in Venezuela. Russia agreed earlier this year, to help Venezuela build a nuclear reactor plant, and continued its relationship in assisting Iran. Over the course of the last several years, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have meet with each other in their respective countries to discuss their plans, with Venezuela actually allowing Iran to take over a mining site within its own country to obtain uranium.

Incidentally, on Chavez’s numerous trips to Iran in the last two years, he also began subsidizing the Militant Islamic group Hezbollah in Lebanon, while continuing to work in conjunction with Iran on its nuclear programs. 

Why in the world would a Latin American President be giving money to an organization bent on destroying the United States and Israel?

The commonality of these three countries is based on the fact that they have been working to create a nuclear program that could threaten the safety of the world. Taking into consideration Chavez’s relationship with Hezbollah, which in itself has ties with al-Qaeda and Iran’s relationship with North Korea, which in turn could sell its missiles or weapons to al-Qaeda, paints a very disturbing picture as to what the United States is doing to seriously address this matter.

President Obama has done little when has come to moving forward on solutions to force North Korea and Iran to dismantle their nuclear plans, and is reluctant to admit putting sanctions against Venezuela and its connections to Iran and Middle East terrorist organizations.

The President also seems to be very reluctant to admit that al-Qaeda has moved its breeding grounds to North Africa in the Sahara desert, since the terrorist network has felt increasing heat to move away from Pakistan and Yemen. In September, al-Qaeda kidnapped five French nationals in Niger, and are currently holding them hostage. As of yesterday, al-Qaeda is reportedly demanding that France pull its troops out of Afghanistan if they want to see the hostages released. This, at the height of the NATO summit last week, which its topic of discussion was pulling out of Afghanistan by 2014.

Here’s a side recommendation to the French Government: If they are successful in getting its citizens out of the hands of al-Qaeda, then they should step up and use their own nuclear weapons as a primary defense in the war on terror, along with the United States. One problem resolved. Wouldn’t want to see all of that nuclear testing in the French Polynesian ocean near the Tahitian Moruroa Atoll go to waste.

But these are continuous escalating global threats. I would question President Obama as to how serious he is on taking affirmative action against these countries nuclear plans and the continuation of the threat from al-Qaeda in order to protect the United States, with the assistance of our allies. He can either get the United States to move on these problems; or simply just do what he said in his speech back in June of 2009, and just let them do their thing and reward them later.

This is probably the biggest world threat since the end of the Cold War, and this is not the extension of it, but rather something much worse.

NATO putting on the pressure to pull out of Afghanistan

Last weekend President Obama hopped all over the financial summits in Asia to discuss global economic reform, and now this weekend, he is meeting with leaders at the NATO summit in Lisbon concerning the War in Afghanistan.

As many may remember, President Obama repeatedly stated that he wanted troops to come home by 2011 and handover the responsibility to Afghan forces. Now it appears that officials are more or less focusing to withdraw the 100,000 troops, which included the 30,000 troops ordered by President Obama last year, by 2014.

The reason for this?

Mainly because Afghanistan has shown very little signs of stabilizing itself.

It shouldn’t appear to be such a shocker to President Obama, nor for any official in our Federal Government, as Afghanistan remains one of the top unstable governments in the entire world and has dealt with a continuous civil war for many decades, both from the invasion from the Soviet Union in the 1970’s, to an internal war throughout the 1990’s which resulted in the Taliban. Yet every time there seemed to be a war going on in Afghanistan, it was never able to build itself into a stabilized country.

I seem to recall we also went into Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Yet after years of fighting a war in that country, Iraq is still quite unstable and the place is pretty much uninhabitable.

Of course, the primary reason for going into Afghanistan back in 2001 in the first place, was to overthrow the Taliban and dismantle the al-Qaeda network, as a direct result of the September 11^th terrorist attacks. Since that time, the U.S. Military has been unsuccessful in capturing the real ringleader behind those attacks, Osama bin Laden, ranging from theories that he is dead, or hiding out someplace in Pakistan.

President Obama has quite a bit to deal with right now in the Middle East, from leaving Iraq, to stabilizing Afghanistan, and apparently ignorant over Iran’s nuclear program.

At the NATO summit, leaders are pressuring President Obama to implement a better strategy for exiting Afghanistan by that time. While NATO has no exact departure date to be set in 2014, it is projected that the new war efforts in Afghanistan will cost American taxpayers $125 billion through these next three and a half years. Never mind the fact that the United States has enough problems on its plate including servicing its $14 trillion national debt, and providing health care for veterans that just returned from Iraq.

The real question remains as to when the United States does in fact leave Afghanistan, is that country going to be able to sustain itself as a stable government with democracy and its Afghan forces; or will it just become another breeding ground for future generations of al-Qaeda, again posing as a threat to our country’s national security, and the rest of the world?

Definition of U.S. Treasury Secretary: a Weasel

The Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is supposed to an experienced economist that has the fiduciary duty and responsibility to oversee the U.S. Treasury. Yet when economists and financial and hedge fund managers of major banking and investment groups and corporations continue to discuss the notion of the U.S. dollar weakening, Secretary Geithner continues to say this is not the case, yet he never seems to offer any evidence to support his defense.

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Chairman, earlier this week claimed “the United States is deliberately weakening the dollar”, challenging Geithner’s responsibility over the Federal Reserve and how it establishes monetary and fiscal policy with relation to currency supply and interest rates. Geithner’s response was that “the U.S. will never do that. We will never seek to weaken our currency as a tool to gain competitive advantage to grow our economy”.

Of course not.

Geithner would simply like every one else in the world to manipulate their own currency, most notably China, which has a reputation for doing so, to solve our monetary problems. At the same time, China does not want to devalue its currency, because it would mean exporting jobs from China, back into the United States. China, which for the most part, owns the United States’ $14 trillion and growing national debt, is really focused on what the Federal Reserve’s inability to control its monetary supply without leading to further inflation, and now critics are actually thinking it might become a deflation of the U.S. dollar.

Yet, in nearly every Congressional testimony that Secretary Geithner has given, he says that the economy is growing within the private sector, despite the unemployment remaining about 9% and most likely projected to remain the same into 2011. He also made a push earlier this week to print $600 billion dollar out of nowhere, which already has foreign critics (again China) up in arms about our federal policies, which was cited by some members of Congress and economists as being another bad decision.

One has to question the motives behind printing all of this currency. The idea for doing so seems to improve the U.S. economy, but has deemed unworkable thus far. Is Secretary Geithner just doing so to make the economy look good, without any notion of thought in regards to inflation? What message are we sending to our foreign lenders over seas? Can the U.S. even continue as a place to do business in the coming years?

I will be the first to admit that I am not an economist by any means, but it does not take rocket science to figure out that Secretary Geithner is clearly continuing to act as a puppet for this Administration, standing around acting as if everything is fine and dandy. This is the same Treasury Secretary who dodged paying taxes and was President of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York during the last few years of the Bush Administration. He has the understanding of the Federal Reserve’s policy, and had full knowledge of the impending problems during the financial crisis, and played a role in bailing out AIG.

Now when you hear him testify before Congress, he acts as though he doesn’t even know what happened during that period and incites wrath in everyone else for his contributing audacity. It is quite incompetent.

I would recommend that someone make an amendment to the definition of what the Treasury Secretary is supposed to be. As far as I’m concerned, its description is... a weasel.

Pelosi kept on as Democratic House Leader?

Before Republicans took back control of the U.S. House of Representatives, there was substantial discussion among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress that they wanted to remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, regardless of either party winning the majority.

Now that John Boehner has taken over her job, many in America can have at least a sigh of relief that we no longer have to listen to her anymore. But now that does not seem to be the case.

What has become a surprising turn of events is that House Democrats are now defending Nancy Pelosi and have decided to keep her on as the Democratic House Minority Leader when the new Congress resumes in January. Looks like the American people will still have to put up with the same horrible grinning mouth, and those eyes that look like a deer trapped in headlights, and refusing to move the hell out of the way.

Mrs. Pelosi has probably been the most ineffective Speaker of the House that this country has ever had. For someone who is to have a dialogue on behalf of Congress, the very people representing America, she demonstrated having possibility the worst communication skills of any high ranking politician in this country, maybe with the exception of President Bush after her party took over in 2007. This is the same Nancy Pelosi, by the way, who said at that time to “intend to have the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.” Do any of the House Democrats remember this crap that was spewed then?

It is quite apparent that this Congress has had little honest, open or ethical qualities. The Congress did nothing in the last few years of the Bush Administration, and allowed policies which lead quickly to the financial disaster of 2008, and basically acted as a bunch of sock puppets for the Obama Administration, refused to listen to a majority of Americans that disapproved of this Administration’s policies, and speaking of ethics, Mrs. Pelosi seems to be entirely in defense of Congressman Charlie Rangel.

It would really be interesting to ask why Democrats kept her on as their supreme leader and what is the motive? Despite all of the criticism and disapproval of many Americans, you would think they could elect at least a Democrat that knows how to speak fluently and effectively, someone like Dennis Kucinich, who is not a rubberstamp like most of the other members of Congress.

But that was not the case. Instead, Democrats raced to her aid and recycled her into their ‘old/new’ Minority Leader. Oh my, do I feel sorry for House Democrats…

California’s Law supersedes Federal Immigration Statute, but Arizona cannot enforce Federal Immigration Law?

The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that illegal aliens are allowed to pay cheaper in-state tuition rates at California universities including the UC systems. The UC systems in particular, charge about $12,000 per year for in-state fees, and $35,000 for out of state.

Some critics are arguing that California’s decision on this matter is a violation of the 1996 Federal Statute, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, which prohibits education benefits to illegal aliens, versus those immigrants that are actually here legally. But the California Supreme Court says that the State Law is not conflicting with the Federal Law because in California, any immigrant can automatically apply for in-state tuition as long as that immigrant attended high school within the State for three years.

This is a rather frustrating matter especially if you look at this somewhat in comparison to Arizona’s decision earlier this year to enforce its border security and deport persons that were in the State illegally, after the Federal Government stood firm on doing nothing, as it has done for many years. No surprise there.

But one might argue that Arizona enforcing the Federal Immigration Law is not the same situation as granting educational benefits to illegal aliens in California. Well, in fact there are some similarities when it comes to Federal Law. Under Aliens and Nationality 8 USC Section 1304, Provision E (and yes the Federal Law does address immigrants as aliens, not undocumented persons, but I digress) clearly spells out that any alien 18 years of age or older must possess a certificate of alien registration receipt card. Failure to do so, results in a misdemeanor, fined $100 and/or a 30 day imprisonment.

What happens if this illegal alien does not hold this paperwork after he or she is accepted to attend college in California? Does the Federal Immigration Law become enforceable, or are they just allowed to continue to attend college?

So California is allowed to grant educational benefits to illegal aliens if they’ve attended high school for at least three years, even after the California Supreme Court says State Law is not conflicting with the 1996 Federal Statute prohibiting such educational benefits, but Arizona, enforcing Federal Immigration Law within its State boundaries, has an injunction filed by the Arizona Supreme Court, blocking the enforcement? There seems to be a huge conflict between State Law and the Federal Law and what a State can and cannot do when it comes to illegal aliens.

I have to say that California seems to be holding a higher degree of amnesty for those illegal aliens attending high school for three years, versus others coming to California seeking an education from out of state. Why does that not sound somewhat discriminatory in a way? If you’re a permanent United States citizen, a student from Arizona or Colorado and you move to California, do you still have to end up paying more for education than the illegal alien now?

At the height when California public universities, both the UC and CSU systems are raising the tuition fees, this seems more like a pandering of making education “less expensive” for illegal aliens.

I will go ahead and note that the United States is the most welcoming country in the world, and encourage my generation from all over the world to come to this country, get an education and apply for a visa or citizenship. I even have friends from college that are from countries like Brazil, Germany, Sweden and Canada who all have to pay the certain out of state fees, some are seeking U.S. citizenship. Yet, they all have to wait, while other illegal aliens cut to the front of the line, and do not speak a word of English, and are able to apply for this low cost tuition for their education.  

It is truly remarkable that when it comes to our Federal Immigration Laws, Arizona mirrored that law, yet the similar Federal Immigration Statutes when it comes to certain education benefits of illegal aliens is not enforced upon California’s State Law.

When are we going to draw the line, and resolve the conflict?

Is Mexico collapsing, due to growing drug cartel violence?

In case people have not already noticed, there is basically a civil war going on with our southern neighbors in Mexico. The war itself is between the Mexican Government and Military, combating the escalating drug cartels throughout the entire country.

CBS News had a stunning report from November 12^th, which indicated in 2010 alone, there were more than 10,000 drug related deaths, and a total of 28,000 deaths since 2006.

Yet despite this, President Felipe Calderon seems to remain somewhat optimistic and looks to the Mexican Military as the last remaining effort to stop the drug violence in all of the nation’s 18 states.

Personally, I would question President Calderon’s optimism, as it seems a majority of citizens in Mexico and even here in the United States are leaning towards the grim possibility that Mexico will be unable to win this war, at least on its own. If this is the case, the question whether or not the leaders behind the cartels and with the hundreds of millions of dollars they profit, have the ability to one day overthrow the Mexican government? Some critics may say it is unlikely, but the Mexican Government, its military and its police force have thus far, have been limited to combat this huge problem.

Speaking of which, the cartels have been targeting a number of the nation’s police force and members of its government. In October of this year, a Mexican police commander who was investigating the death of an American tourist on Falcon Lake which is shared on the border with Texas and Mexico was murdered, and his decapitated head was found in a suitcase delivered outside of a Mexican army base.

President Calderon has been outspoken with his criticism of the United States, saying that our nation is responsible for financing the cartels and empowering its members with weapons. But how many of those members based here in the United States are actually in the country illegally?

I find President Calderon’s criticism in somewhat of a catch 22 scenario. There is no question that criminals in the United States have been involved with the Mexican drug cartels, and have most likely have helped finance and supply weapons to its members. But keep in mind that this is the same Mexican President that spoke in a joint session in Congress back in the Spring of this year, criticizing Arizona’s immigration law which was passed to get a handle on the growing violence in that border state.

So how can President Calderon criticize the United States, while at the same time, criticize Arizona earlier this year for trying to get a handle on the situation? It is quite hypocritical in some regard, and it should still be pointed out clearly that Mexico’s immigration law is much stricter than the United States federal immigration law. The reason as to why Mexico is unable to enforce those laws, is because of the drug cartel problem.

It was after President Obama took office in January, 2009 that he vowed to partner with Mexico in the war on drug cartel violence, and even Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said during a Congressional hearing in February of 2009, “Mexico has issues of violence that are a different degree and level than we have ever seen before.”

After nearly eight years under President Bush of States like Arizona and Texas asking the Federal Government for National Guard and Military enforcements, and now two years under President Obama, virtually little has been done to secure and protect our nation’s borders from the drug violence in Mexico. The logical way that seems key to solving the problem, is simply close the U.S.-Mexican border, and then develop a compromise and resolution between Presidents Obama and Calderon and the U.S. Congress, deploy the Military efforts in both countries to combat the drug war internally in Mexico.

Still, nearly every single day, there seems to be another report of drug cartel related violence and murders, and the increase of this violence continues. More deaths, more tragedy, more violence and more of a developing threat to the Mexican Government.

The real question remains, is the United States going to finally close the borders entirely, and perhaps lend a helping hand to Mexico to contain its ever growing drug cartel problem? Or leave the borders wide open for the violence to continue to spread into our country, while at the same time, Mexico’s resources in combating the cartels, collapses?

APEC moves forward on expanding free trade in Asian Pacific Region

President Obama, as part of his visit to Asia earlier this week, participated in the two day Asia-Pacific Economy Cooperative summit in Japan this weekend which focused on an effort to call for more ‘liberalized free trade’ in the Asian Pacific Region.

Some leaders in the region however, are not buying this. Apparently, President Obama was unable to come to an agreement with South Korea, which the United States anticipated on completing during the summit, known as the U.S.-South Korea trade deal. This has left many questions and concerns with other countries based in the region. The trade deal with South Korea was to become a catalyst for a more open and less restrictive regional trade deal called The Transpacific Partnership in the Asian Pacific Region.

Despite the fact that the United States’ trade deficit has diminished in the last few years, now to the tune of about $400 billion for fiscal year 2010, Obama seems to show a great deal of heavy dependency on establishing these trade agreements as he views Asia being one of the greatest priorities for solving diplomacy and importing jobs back into the United States. Again, it comes back to the notion of not only China, but now other countries based in the Asian Pacific Region, as to whether the United States can remain committed to such free trade proposals, while trying to stabilize our monetary supply and inflation

There is no question that the United States has, and will continue to feel the heat from China, since their currency is devalued, they can export production for far less, than what it would cost the United States to do the same job. This same week, President Obama at the G-20 summit failed to try to get garner support to influence China to undervalue their currency to the U.S. dollar, and believe that it was free trade. They can say it is free trade, while the United States continues to get murdered by such exports, but when it comes to correcting the imbalances, well, then that is not called free trade.

At the height of forging ahead with free trade throughout the Asian Pacific Region is one thing, but to basically continue to criticize China’s currency in relation to free trade, for the idiocy of our own monetary policies, is absurdly irresponsible.

United States will not garner support from G-20 to push China’s currency value

The finance ministers from the 20 major economies refused to back the United States’ push in China boosting its currency value today. The reason why the United States is doing this mainly due to the concerns over escalating disputes with China (the main lender for the U.S., by the way) and their ability to have cheap labor and exports, which the United States says is costing American jobs.

President Obama is calling this a disappointing turn of events after the leaders of the G-20 decided to not devalue their currency. Obama wanted the opposite to occur, which was a more competitive undervaluation, which would have influenced the leaders of G-20 to push China’s currency value. Furthermore, the United States fears that nations such as China, who are protective of their own currency policies and trade barriers, will send a shockwave through the global economy and put it back into a recession.

It seems as though President Obama still lives in a fantasy world of looking to every other leader to put together a plan to solve the United States’ financial woes. Why should China, which owns the United States' national debt, be forced to loosen its own currency value to help the United States? China didn't cause the economic problems in the United States, it was the poor decisions made by President Bush and the idiotic Democratic leadership of Congress, most notably individuals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

China, most likely is laughing hysterically at the United States, after the Obama Administration and the weasel that is Tim Geithner, choose to solve our trillions of dollars in debt.... by adding more trillions of dollars in debt. Insane. 

Obviously, the President has been completely oblivious to the Federal Reserve’s inability to stabilize the currency supply and interest rates, and continuing on the path that leads to further inflation. Now the United States admits it was undermined by the central bank's decision to print $600 billion in an apparent effort to keep the economy afloat, while at the same time the currency value diminishes.

Since the President will do nothing to solve the real problems crippling the United States such as the creation of real private sector jobs, reforming pension/union funds in government programs, cost of illegal aliens and maybe telling those puppet master internationalists like George Soros (who buys individuals within the government to create an agenda) to go take a walk, the President is really at a breaking point were there are very few options to choose from when it comes to our monetary and fiscal issues.

He’s not going to solve the real problems, and he is now finding out that when it comes to the United States’ monetary and fiscal policies, leaders in other countries, including those at the G-20 summit are not going to help our nation. They’ve really done all that they can since the financial collapse in 2008, and it is time for the United States to solve its own problems internally, even if it means for this President to finally stand up and say “no” to the people that are influencing him to make decisions which are deemed irresponsible.

California is going to get ugly real fast… Part II

As many people already know, California has been experiencing severe financial problems for several years, and they continue to escalate. In the past year, California has struggled to find ways to solve the $20 billion deficit.

Now there is more grim news on the horizon. Seven days after the election in which the same ignorant voters in this State decided to re-elect the same morons responsible for destroying the economy of California and choosing not to vote for the propositions which may have helped prevent further damage financially, the California Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), announced that there will most likely be another $19 billion gap between revenues and spending in the State in the coming fiscal year.

Based on their non-partisan analysis, the LAO indicates that $6 billion will result in a shortfall in the $86 billion general fund spending plan that was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on October 8^th. So what was already a $20 billion budget deficit has actually grown to the tune of $25.4 billion. In addition, $400 million in Medi-Cal savings is more than likely not going to happen because the California Legislature took too long to implement the plan and the savings ended up being too high than what was projected.

I’m sure incoming/returning Governor Jerry Brown is going to love to have to deal with this crisis when he takes the helm in January.

Mac Taylor, a legislative analyst with the LAO, says that California will most likely have to face budgets problems of $20 billion each year from now, all the way through fiscal year, 2015-16.

Incredibly, the LAO report believes that California “will not go bankrupt, and that debt payments will not go into default and the State government is not on the verge of collapse.”

Where have these clowns been in the course of the last several years? Do they (the Legislature and the LAO) not fully comprehend the seriousness of this matter? Do they not realize that there needs to be emergency cuts to severe problems in California like government worker programs, union and pension fund plans and the cost of illegal immigration, which are all major factors to California’s financial woes?

The officials in the California State Legislature have been beyond reckless with policies on spending, completely lazy when it comes to focusing on solutions, and it has gone far beyond the point to where the entire State has been unable to remain as a place to carry out its business, as they continue to leave in droves, and now, the State is having to borrow $40 million a day in payments, just to cover its 12.4% unemployment.

But this joke of a LAO report sincerely believes that everything is going to be fine, we’re not going to become bankrupt, despite the fact that the deficit has grown to $6 billion because the solutions to try and close those gaps will simply not pan out.

The truth of the matter is that Governor Schwarzenegger and the Democratic Controlled State Legislature has had ample opportunities over the last several years to enact measures and address the State’s problems to help cut spending, and save tax payer money. They all vowed not to do so, and continued to support the programs that have since destroyed the State, and then they all stand around and wonder why the State is suffering horribly. It is hypocritical, and it is disgusting.

Once Governor Brown takes over in January and the new Assembly resumes, it will probably be the same business as usual. Ignore all the real problems and threats to California and come to the tax payers to bail out the problems that will be forthcoming. One of the problems in this State are the ignorant hypocritical voters that always whine and complain about how serious the situation really is here in California, but yet they continue to vote for the same idiots that have committed themselves to destroy it. Incredible and insane!

California should be added to the Guinness Book of World Records for having the largest population of hypocrites!

Ahmadinejad says Iran’s nuclear rights are non-negotiable

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran said on Wednesday that Iran is moving ahead on its atomic nuclear program, and made it very clear that it was non-negotiable. In the past month, many countries including the United States, France, Russia, Germany and China have all indicated concerns about Iran’s nuclear program based in Tehran.

Well, at least the United States is continuing to show concern over Iran’s nuclear program. You may recall back in 2003, when President Bush took the United States into Iraq, that he was under the impression from the CIA that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

It turns out that of course was not the case, but now we have Iran, being in a position to establish its nuclear plans with the support of technological nuclear exports from North Korea, and probably thinly subsidized by internationalists that want to destroy America.

What is interesting here, is how much outcry there was in 2003 when President Bush took us into Iraq, and now when you have Iraq’s neighbor in a position to move forward with its plans that could threaten the safety of the United States and the rest of world, you seem to hear very little concern of this issue especially in the mainstream news media.

While Ahmadinejad says that Iran’s mission is to establish a peaceful nuclear program, the real concern is again, how serious Iran is with relation to what they claim is peaceful. Ahmadinejad has stated that he is willing to have rational discussions with world leaders, but will not tolerate any country violating Iran’s rights.

The United Nations, which opposes Iran’s nuclear program showing defiance of UN policies, wants more transparency with Ahmadinejad. Perhaps the UN should implement the same memorandum they issued to Iraq, which was to disclose or face serious consequences, and the President to stand up for the American people and tell the truth of what is happening over there in Iran.

Everyone in this country knows that Iran and they’re neighbors in Afghanistan and Pakistan; want nothing more than to see the end to Israel and the United States. For President Ahmadinejad to speak at the UN in September, criticize the United States and say that the 9/11 terrorist attacks was the fault of the U.S. Government, demonstrates that he is harboring a haven for the threats in the Middle East, and to carry out his plan to develop this program that is going to threaten the rest of the world.

What the world leaders at the UN should have done is allow President Ahmadinejad to make his point, tar and feather him, and run him the hell out on a rail.

The United States needs to start addressing this matter more closely when it comes to foreign policy. While this country continues to suffer from just about everything, from unemployment, to the economic crisis and unfavorable policies set forth by President Obama, these matters escalated in the Middle East, should be added to his ‘top five’ concerns.

I would also like to say Happy Veteran’s Day to all of our men and women serving in uniform.

Texas aims to create immigration law like Arizona

Texas, like the rest of the country, is getting tired of illegal immigration and they are considering adopting the same kind of law that made Arizona so controversial earlier this year.

Debbie Riddle, a Texas State Representative from Houston actually camped out all night on the State Capitol in Austin and went ahead in filing the immigration bill because she claims, "the people of Texas are no longer asking, but demanding it. We have to make some significant steps toward illegal immigration and in addition to that, border security."

I give full credit to Ms. Riddle for moving in the right direction on establishing a new immigration law in Texas, and it is a dire shame that the rest of the Border States are not taking any notice. Now Ms. Riddle does acknowledge that her proposed law does have some differences such as if someone is arrested on a warrantless arrest, a law enforcement officer can inquire to one's legal status and if this person is here illegally and verified through Immigration and Customs Enforcement, they can actually be detained for illegal trespassing, which would result in a misdemeanor.

It would probably be very beneficial for Texas to go ahead and vote on this bill, and for Governor Rick Perry to sign it into law. In Houston, the gang-related violence connected with Mexican drug cartels has risen more than 250% since 2004, and it has become a real threat to the safety and security of the citizens living in Houston and throughout the rest of the State, particularly the areas near the border. This was exactly the reason why Arizona signed their law into effect in the first place..., to enforce its own laws in accordance of the federal law, and to protect its people. Something that the people in Washington D.C., simply don't care anything about.

Texas has always been a state that has sort of a "maverick" viewpoint on issues, and they're usually not the kind of state to put up with nonsense. Governor Perry earlier this year was slightly critical of Arizona's right to enforce immigration law and protect its people, saying it was a federal responsibility. Hopefully he will now recognize that is a serious issue, the violence on the borders has escalated this year, and the backstabbing members of Congress in Washington are not going to do anything to enforce the federal immigration law and help the States protect themselves from the in-pouring of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, and members of the criminal drug cartels.

For liberal America, its all theory to them, the Hispanic/Latin America Human Rights Groups and the ACLU, for example, believe that the federal immigration law needs to simply be ignored, and we're all suppose to keep our borders wide open, let all of the these people just come in here who don't speak a word of English, overpopulate our States, take advantage of our broken welfare system, destroy our cities with garbage and make way for drug cartels as a central place to carry out their business.

It is almost as though liberal America, who always voice their opinion on wanting 'freedom for all', wants to simply disband all of our existing laws, and turn us into a complete anarchy country. Speaking from someone from California, I guess I can relate on that level since California is on the verge of collapse and the cost of illegal immigration is almost about half of California's financial problems. I'm sure you're going to hear all sorts of criticism from these types of left-wing radical groups that it’s going to lead to racial profiling, or it’s a violation of human rights.

Well, who cares! The fact of the matter is, quite frankly, people are sick and tired of putting up with this problem.

We don't need anymore illegal aliens in this country; we don't need anymore members of drug cartels trafficking through our States posing as a threat to people; we as taxpayers, don't need to have to continue to pay tens of billions of dollars a year for the costs of illegal aliens, our States and our Country simply cannot afford it any longer.

Once the Texas legislature votes on the bill, hopefully Governor Perry will reconsider his thoughts and sign the bill into law. Do it Governor Perry!

Obama supports China's criticism of the United States' monetary policies

President Obama today stopped over in Jakarta, Indonesia, as part of his hopping all over South East Asia this week, to discuss monetary policy and growth at a summit for the G20 Finance Ministers, in which Indonesia is a member of.

What a surprise, since G20 has close relations with the European Union, and endorsing a world currency, which Obama endorses. According to Reuters, the President said at this summit with Indonesian President Susilo Yudhoyono:

"We have a lot of work  to do and one of the key steps is putting in place additional tools to encourage balanced and sustainable growth".

What exactly are these additional tools to encourage balanced and sustainable growth? Why in the hell is the President encourages the G20 System, when he cannot even get the Federal Reserve to control its own fiscal and monetary policies regarding taxation, monetary supply and interest rates, since he was elected into office?

In relation to that, China actually criticized the United States exactly for the things I just mentioned above, as they fear the more ignorant the United States is with relation to our monetary and fiscal policies, it would be more instrumental in becoming destructive to the global economy and leading to further inflation.

You would think that the President would take note of some of the advanced warnings laid out by China, and that the President would find a new ass to kick, maybe Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke or that sycophantic little yes weasel Tim Geithner. But instead, President Obama chooses to find an ass to kiss. He decides to support China's criticism of the United States.

"We want China to succeed and prosper, its good for the United States if China continues on that path of development that it is on"

Seriously, does President Obama realize that the $14 trillion national debt, which continues to grow at an accelerated basis, is mainly owned by China? Does the President also realize that my generation and all future generations are liable for this debt created by both he and former President Bush? Did President Obama ever take into consideration at the height of the financial meltdown in 2008 that it was wrong to endorse government intervention into the financial sector? Did the President think that adding trillions more in debt was the logical way to solve the problem of our already growing national debt crisis?

To sit over there in Jakarta, Indonesia and say he wants China to prosper is pretty disturbing. With no disrespect to China, this President has to be somewhat informative that China's commodities are greater than the United States, they've basically defeated us in every single regard, the major manufacturing and industrial factories have all been based out of China primarily because they have forced labor there and they have a grasp control of their own financial system. If you look at comparison with relation to jobs, competition in the business sector, educational system and our own government's financial stability, we're far below with relation to where China stands.

What really frustrated me recently in California involved this notion of 'creating green jobs' in California, which President Obama endorses. Here, the solar power manufacturing company Solyndra, recently closed one of its factories in an effort to save $60 million in annual expenses, laid off 40 full time employees and terminated contracts to 100 temporary workers. It should be noted that Solyndra received more than $530 million as part of a federal loan guarantee program and more than $1 billion in equity.

You may ask why Solyndra for example, is cutting back its operations and laying off its workers? It is because Solyndra and California, along with the rest of the United States, cannot keep up with the competition of manufacturing firms in China, who can do the same amount of work and defeat the cost of doing it in the United States.

While the President just looks at the positive of China's criticism of our monetary policies, maybe he should start getting serious for once in his tenure to do something to focus on creating real jobs within the United States, and working on a solution to control how the Federal Reserve is handling our monetary supply and how it effects the economy, both within the United States and globally.

I'm sure China has to be especially interested in the United States' future in the creation of jobs and our monetary and fiscal policies... because they expect to be repaid for bailing us out.

Obama forging ahead with New World Order?

Earlier this week, I watched a science fiction film favorite of mine that nobody has probably ever seen, Dead End Drive-In, a B-Movie from 1986 and was based in Australia. The film opens with the fact that the world’s economy has collapsed, and a series of events spread including nuclear explosions, rioting, inflation, unemployment and crime, and as a result, a newly formed world Government evokes the powers to try and control everyone. From there, the film centers on the protagonist named Crabs, who is an unemployed trouble maker, obviously ignorant to everything that has happened, and one night he and his girlfriend decide to go out into one of the old Drive-In movie theaters. It turns out that the Drive-Ins have been converted into a Government sponsored concentration camp, where they decide to hold all of the social rejects who are feed junk food and keep them there until they basically die.

Something like what was shown in this movie may sound too far fetched to ever happen in our life time, but the truth of the matter is what we are experiencing in this country specifically is the Government wanting absolute control and cooperation of the people.

We’ve heard this notion of creating a New World Order for nearly 40 years. Russian President Gorbachev, and former U.S. Presidents George H. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, among many others, say over the years that there is the great need and opportunity for the United States to work with other nations on developing this New World Order, in an effort to control all nations and the economies. The United Nations was created specifically for this reason, which one day, there would be a one world government, with complete world peace and prosperity. Isn’t it interesting that the charter of the UN was established in 1945, right after the Great Depression and World War II?

Today, we are basically in the same situation. We’ve already experienced similarities from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a War in Iraq, and a financial economic collapse. President Obama said both during his candidacy and after he was elected, he wanted to work with nations across the world to establish a New World Order to ensure the unification of the world’s powers to promote peace and global security.

Right now, the entire puzzle is already solved, but it is breaking it apart and separating all of the pieces that are the key to fully comprehending the complexity of it. It all can be seen right in plain sight.

While I personally believe President Obama is a radical, the United States is threatened by much more than typical self-described Socialists and Communists; we’re threatened by intelligence from within, which globalists are attempting to brainwash the United States with their agenda. That is just the case, the New World order is not a conspiracy theory, but rather an agenda.

The influence from within include United Nations, the Council of Foreign Relations and a secretive group known as The Bilderbergs. The agenda of these organizations is to propose the New World Order, in addition to forming a more ‘perfect union’, in this case, establishing the same form of union seen in Europe or in Africa, as they feel the U.S. Constitution has become obsolete.

This is not the first time either that there has been discussion centering on what is known as the North American Union, a so called free-trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why President Obama wants to keep the borders wide open? To hopefully one day establish the NAU, which is what these organizations have continuously promoted, and formed in other parts of the world. As a result, this has and continues to be a very serious threat to our country’s national security, and if the United States is sincere on forging ahead with creating a union in North America, similar to the European Union, it will be the first major step in creating a new world order, and doing so without the approval of the American people and the U.S. Congress. Our country is being sold out by global profits.

It is also no secret that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has attended the Bilderberg conferences, most likely to discuss financial stability throughout the world. I’d like to know how in the world this man sleeps at night, when all he is doing is simply printing paper with no value, and providing absolutely no stable fiscal and monetary environment. Anyone with any sense of basic economics should know that unstable economies, like the United States is in right now, are typically characterized by two issues: high inflation and unemployment. As long as those two issues continue to be a problem, its brings considerable concern as to whether the United States can continue to even function in a position to do business. Insofar, the Government has failed to control inflation through taxation and how government spends this money, and has failed in setting monetary policies, because they cannot get full control on our monetary supply and interest rates.

Our country’s economic stability is on the verge of failure, and the rest of the global economy continues to falter, as it continues to decline, so does the value of the American dollar. We continue to sell our debt to China, use my generation as collateral for the debt, just so they can carry out this agenda to create what has to be a one world economy. Everyone knows that the hundreds of trillions of dollars that the United States has accumulated over the course of the last ten years will most likely never be paid back. As a result, their only solution is to get the unification of all nations to have this one globalized economy, a one world government, manipulate and convince the American people that they should abandon their freedoms, and favor bigger government.

Our government was initially created to secure and protect our nation; now what the government has done is choose to serve the demands of the people. As the country’s problems continue to escalate, the government seems as though it has to grow to solve and control those problems. Liberal Democrats have typically favored big government because they believe we need government sponsored programs and a proper slate of taxes to meet the demands of the crumbling social infrastructure. Just like in the movie,

Dead End Drive

In.

Are we really going to come to the point one day were the Government becomes so far into the realm of Socialism, then Communism and ultimately into a one world Dictatorship where they can exterminate a certain portion of the world’s population, and establish concentration camps because society continues to crumble? There is hope, if society can rise out of its current state of dormancy and see the kind of manipulation and corruption going on, and simply say the same thing that Peter Finch's character Howard Beale said in the movie, Network. You really are mad as hell, and you're not going to take it anymore.

That is all this Government is focused on doing is controlling the people, whether it’s telling you what foods you should eat, or increasing taxes and spending levels, when actually, if you break this apart, one can see that people’s liberty is being threatened. This is one of the first steps in carrying out their agenda.

Our elected representatives have no real purpose at all, they have no morals or ethics, they are bought by the corporations, unions and special interest groups, most of them cannot figure out the difference between right and wrong, and I personally think that many of the members of Congress, have no conscious.  It does not matter if they are a Republican or Democrat, they are completely sold out. There are a few that do understand what is happening, however: A Republican Congressman like Ron Paul, or a Democratic Congressman like Dennis Kucinich, which by the way, I don’t always agree with everything they favor in terms of their political stance, but they believe in at least honest representation, and they are two of very few elected representatives that are not influenced by, again, organizations like the Council of Foreign Relations. The majority of our elected Representatives, are bought, and choose to instead, brainwash everyone in propaganda.

We certainly saw how just about every other American was brainwashed into believing then candidate Barack Obama’s promise of “Hope and Change”, when really all the Change was is to carry out a radical agenda to adopted into the United States, expand greater government and incorporate ourselves into the proposed New World Order.

One will wonder, if this is really going on right now within our country which is a threat to our nation’s security and a violation of what our founders laid out in the Constitution, why is not being discussed in newspapers or mainstream news media.

It is because the people that control this agenda are the ones that successfully put Obama into office, and they also control the news media and our elected officials.

Any future change when it comes to bias in the news media?

The bias in mainstream news and cable news is pretty extraordinary. If television news networks and newspapers had a balanced team of political contributors whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians or Independents, I think you would see a decline in people that are brainwashed and buy into this propaganda. Americans are finding that the more media operations that are promoting liberalism are failing. Whether its networks like MSNBC, or newspapers like The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, they’re failing beyond disbelief.

I first began to notice bias in the news media in late 2008 when I started paying attention to politics and at the height of then candidate Barack Obama and all of his coverage before he was elected. I realized that was probably the cause of the bias. He was a Democrat, an African American, promising all of this 'change', and as a result, the news networks primarily being MSNBC and CNN, and CBS and ABC, felt inclined to give him all of the coverage they felt he deserved, and they were tired of President Bush. MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews once said that "I get this thrill up my leg" when he heard Obama speak, which I'm sure he regrets now that he's been mocked and spoofed ever since then; then you had Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS try to railroad Sarah Palin, John McCain's then-Republican Vice Presidential candidate.

The one network that did not give extensive coverage to Barack Obama was Fox News. In fact, I don't think Fox News even did extensive coverage of John McCain. There is no question that Fox News leans right and promotes a more conservative platform, and while I do not always agree with Fox's "fair and balanced" motto, they do bring out the facts that need to be discussed whether its the financial problems, or how Americans think of certain legislative decisions in Congress, Fox usually discusses them.

After Obama was elected as President, I noticed a huge shift in the news media from leaning left, to leaning ultra left.

MSNBC went into overdrive. Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow began to promote this beyond awful liberal agenda, and never displayed any of the facts. For example, the Healthcare Bill. Did anyone on MSNBC even bother to read the bill and analyze the problems? Probably not. Instead, each of these commentators' platform has been anything that is left-leaning or promoted by President Obama, they will support, even if it causes dire consequences for the rest of the country. I will give credit to Chris Matthews in the sense that he does try to have cordial debates with Republicans and Democrats on his show, even though he is left-leaning in term of his final opinion. Keith Olbermann in particular, I am inclined to believe, along with most people, that he is terrified of Republicans. He is terrified of debates and differences in opinion, so instead, he has to resort to baseless attacks and smear anyone who disagrees with his opinion or the progressive-liberal agenda.

MSNBC also did quite a bit of exploitive coverage of criticizing the Tea-Parties across America in 2009. MSNBC commentators like Olbermann, or Matthews argued that it was not fair that people were criticizing President Obama after only three months in office for the financial meltdown and people getting taxed to death. It was all Bush’s fault.

Well of course Bush is to be blamed as is the Democratic controlled Congress. The real reason of the Tea-Party is that people are tired of the growth of our government. It has nothing to do with right wing extremism. People were getting angry in 2008 when President Bush and Congress bailed out Wall Street and the economy was collapsing, and then it continued to happen into President Obama’s first months in office: the Stimulus package (which failed) and bailing out General Motors. Yet, MSNBC covered the individuals at these Tea-Parties across the nation as condemning President Obama as a socialist and he’s made up to look like Adolph Hitler. True, many Tea-Party protestors had signs that described Obama like Hitler, but it was out of frustration and anger.

I seem to remember back in 2006, when left-wing liberals were protesting the War in Iraq, they had several signs depicting President Bush as Hitler… yet there was no extensive coverage in the mainstream news media at that time, nor any outcry from the opposition.

To hear someone like Keith Olbermann argue back in 2009 that it was not fair that President Obama was being criticized a few months into his presidency is hypocritical in itself. Olbermann also criticized President Bush for the 9/11 attacks, even though Bush had only been in office for less than a year. What's the difference? It should be noted that President Clinton actually admitted to Chris Wallace on Fox News that he failed to capture and kill Osama bin Laden.

Enough on MSNBC for a moment.

Now CNN is not as left-leaning as MSNBC. I used to think at one time that CNN was more neutral and had a balance of opinion. They have liberal commentators like Anderson Cooper or Larry King, and more conservative commentators like Lou Dobbs. But after Obama was elected, CNN seemingly not wanting to get into the middle of the competition between MSNBC and Fox News, decides to start promoting a “news” only agenda, and doing away with commentary. Lou Dobbs, for example, had been a crusader against illegal immigration, outspokenly critical of the Bush Administration and the Democratic controlled Congress. Yet when he continued his opinions, even when it came to Obama’s birth certificate and challenging the President on his economic policies, special interest groups start to pressure CNN to get him off the network… and that’s what happened.

Interestingly, after Dobbs resigned from CNN, all of their other longtime anchors started to leave every other month, because of the network’s failure in ratings: One by one, Erica Hill, Christiane Amanpour, Campbell Brown and the soon-to-retire Larry King all decided to leave the network, and CNN has not done much to improve itself as a news organization.

Now CNN certainly has some excellent world class journalists like Wolf Blitzer, John King and Candy Crowley, even though they are straight and neutral on the political issues. Probably the only commentator on CNN that a real hoot to listen to is Jack Cafferty. A shame he does not have enough time in his segment on The Situation Room to tell the American people how he really feels. While Cafferty was critical of the Bush Administration, he is the only one on CNN that has been very vocal in the last year with criticizing just about every decision that the Obama Administration has made. The emails he reads every day certainly reflects how the American people feel about our corrupt and failed government, and of this President.

One final note about CNN that I found irritating occurred recently. Its long time anchor Rick Sanchez, someone I really didn’t care too much for, was fired for making controversial remarks about Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart on a radio program. As a result, CNN terminated his employment with the network. Shortly after this, Joy Behar on The View said horrible and hateful comments about Nevada Senate Republican candidate Sharron Angle, calling her “a bitch… she’s going to hell”.

Tell me something, Joy Behar has a commentary broadcast on CNN’s sister network, HLN. So CNN exercises its right to fire Rick Sanchez, but refuses to do anything about Joy Behar? If that is not a form of bias in terms of ethical standards on the same network, I don’t know what is. In retrospect, I almost feel sorry for Sanchez.

Same thing happened with Juan Williams at NPR News. He contributes to Fox News and voiced his opinion on Muslims in airlines, and as a result, the liberalism in NPR News removes him.

As indicated before, there is no question that Fox News leans right, but as anyone can tell, it is the only news network that does. In a sense, they are in the minority, but Fox has the ratings. They virtually destroy MSNBC and CNN every hour on the hour, seven days a week. This is because people want to know about they’re government and how bad it really is out there, and Fox News delivers.

Glenn Beck is a great entertainer, and true, I don’t always agree with everything he focuses his attention on, however if you break apart some of the things he discusses on his program, it does make sense. I should point out that Beck has been the main commentator in the last year or so that has been attacked every day by left-fielders like Keith Olbermann, saying he is just a conspiracy theorist and promotes conservative bias. If there is one thing that Glenn Beck said that really stuck in my head, it was something he said back in 2007 while he still had his broadcast on Headline News. Beck was being critical of President Bush and said something to the effect that “he probably has the worst communication with the American people since James Buchanan”. It was at that point that I realized commentators that appear to be conservative, are indeed openly critical of both parties.

Yet, you will never hear Olbermann or anyone else on the left mention the fact that Beck was critical of the Bush Administration before he moved to Fox News.

Another interesting discussion Beck had on his old Headline News broadcast was with Lou Dobbs concerning the left’s attempt to stifle free speech on cable news and radio. As with the examples laid out above, whether it was Dobbs himself leaving CNN, or Sanchez, or whoever, the left is trying to do this. Then you have this radical left-wing media watchdog group, Media Matters for America that cuts bits and pieces of commentaries of anyone involved in the news that is not a liberal, and exploits them, but they never exploit any liberal that says hateful comments, like Joy Behar did.

They’ve tried for quite sometime now to get Beck removed from Fox News, but they’ve been unsuccessful…. Good!

But perhaps Fox News’ voice of reason is Bill O’Reilly. He tells it like it is, and usually has two sides to discuss the issues on his program, and this is the reason why O’Reilly has the top rated cable news program. If you tell it like it is, and it is a hot button issue that people can probably relate to and agree on, they’ll watch. O’Reilly is controversial sometimes on issues which makes it one more reason why people tune in.

Fox does have other commentators like Sean Hannity, a true-Reagan conservative, although I personally think a more fair and balanced program was Hannity and Colmes, before liberal commentator Alan Colmes decided to leave the show. Greta Van Susteren, John Stossell and Megyn Kelly also give thought provoking opinions on their respectable programs, without a political position.

Now that the Republicans have taken back control of the U.S. House of Representatives, are we going to see a future change when it comes to the news media?

Already, I’m seeing Bill O’Reilly change his stance slightly on Fox News, fairly analyzing the new GOP held house and they’re attempts in 2011 to work with the President. Keith Olbermann has even removed his Worst Person in the World segment on his program.

I think the bias in the news media, either through the cable news network platforms or newspapers and its relationship with politics in Washington D.C. has even more so, angered Americans. I think with this change of power, perhaps we will see a neutral position on both sides of politics, instead just favoring one party.

It is seemingly becoming apparent that liberals in this country see that progressive agenda is not going to work in this country and the message from the American people has hopefully been heard.

Is there really going to be any future change when it comes to the bias in the news media? I guess we’ll find out in the coming year. After all, how much worse can it get?