Recession: The Sky is Not Falling

So we are in a recession ... What’s the big deal about that? This country goes into recession on an average of about every six years, and this one is right on schedule.

The biggest difference in this recession and past recessions is the Lame Stream Media (LSM), or perhaps the LEFTIST Media would be a better description since they have been in the tank with the Left for the better part of 15 years. All we have heard during this recession is DOOM and GLOOM, which we did not hear in any of the eleven (11) previous recessions this country has experienced since WW2. This time, the media has gone bonkers with left wing propaganda over this recession. If one actually takes time to look at the real raw numbers, this recession is actually a bit better than the earlier ones.

Now I’m not trained on the kinds of numbers the economists use to show just what makes a recession. And by the way, ninety-nine and forty-four one hundredths percent of our “leaders” aren’t either. Therefore, one could say that I know about as much as those in leadership in this country. If the truth were known, I may know a bit more since I am at least willing to do some reading rather than just taking some biased figures fed into the reports by those who want to spend a bunch of money to satisfy political debts and maintain power. I have read numbers from the WSJ, the NYT, and about a half dozen other business journals and magazines. And yeah, even that leftwing rag has posted some numbers, although they then covered up the real meaning with their typical doom and gloom. I tried to figure out a way to put them all into one nice list that would explain how this recession is a typical recession, not “the-sky-is-falling-and-we-are-going-into-depression-next-week” reports that we hear most of the time.

Then I ran across an article by Randall Hoven. Now I don’t know Randall Hoven from Jack, so I decided to see who Randall Hoven was. Is he an economist, a lawyer, or what? To my elation, I discovered that he is neither, which gave me a bit of hope that this guy might just be a smart guy who understand math a heck of a lot better than I. Yep, he does. The guy is an engineer, you know those guys who are plotters and never get in a hurry to do anything until they have the facts together. His education was impressive, at least to me. He has an M.S. in Systems Science & Mathematics, from Washington University, 1985, and before that he received his M.S. in Electrical Engineering, Johns Hopkins U., 1982, with honors. Not bad when it comes to arithmetic learning in my book. Anyhow he came up with some facts and figures that, I am happy to say, line up with a lot of other sources as well. In fact, he even furnished a list of his sources, which is more than the so-called leadership has furnished us in their attempt to sell us on this Spending Plan disguised as a Stimulus Plan. It is actually nothing more than a payback plan to groups and one in hopes of remaining in power in order to get more money from these same groups to stay in power to get more money to ... you get the idea.

Here is what Randall came up with:
The country had a decline of 3.8% culminated in the 4th quarter for the annual pace, this after a decline in the 3rd quarter. That makes the legal definition of “recession” two consecutive quarters of shrinking real GDP somewhat factual. The media, of course, made this to look like “the sky is falling” which suited the leaders in DC just fine because now they could pull the transfer of a lot of borrowed money to their special groups and make it look like they were doing something good for the country.

So if we look at the real numbers, first off, the "annual rate" of 3.8% shrinkage is what we'd get if that same one-quarter pace continued for four quarters. What actually happened was that GDP shrank 0.1% in the 3rd quarter and 1.0% in the 4th, for a combined loss of 1.1% over two quarters. Through all of 2008, the real GDP shrank just 0.2%, because the economy actually grew in the first half of the year. So far not bad and the “sky is not falling.” To date in this recession, and it is okay to call it a recession, real GDP has shrunk 1.1% from its peak, and non-farm payrolls has shrunk 1.9% from its peak. How do these numbers compare to previous recessions?

The maximum drop in real GDP for the previous 10 recessions, peak to trough, ranged from 0.4% to 3.8%, and averaged 1.9%. So far, it has dropped 1.1% in this recession.

The duration of GDP shrinkage, peak to trough, ranged from one quarter to five quarters, and averaged 2.4 quarters. So far, our recession has two quarters of negative growth.

The maximum drop in non-farm payrolls ranged from 1.3% to 5.2% (1949), and averaged 2.7%. So far, payrolls dropped 1.9% in this recession.

The duration of payroll shrinkage has ranged from 4 to 30 months, and averaged 13. So far, payrolls have shrunk for 12 months in this recession.

The peak unemployment rate ranged from 6.1% to 10.8%, and averaged 7.5%. The latest number for the current recession, December 2008, was 7.2%.

Since World War II, we've averaged a recession about every 6 years, start to start.

After looking at these numbers, would one be able to actually declare that “the sky is falling”? Actually, the numbers, like most numbers dealing with money, contain good news and bad news. According to Randall, this is what it means:

The good news is that our current recession is nowhere near unprecedented. In fact, it is better than the average recession in all measures above: real GDP, non-farm payrolls and unemployment rate. In fact, you could say it is a typical recession. It even started about six years after the last one.

The bad news is that this recession is probably not over. If this becomes an "average" post-WWII recession, our GDP will fall another 0.8%, in this quarter (1st of 2009) before it starts growing. And payrolls will shrink another 0.8% over the next month or so, before growing again. And unemployment will peak at 7.5%.

If this recession matches the worst of the previous 10, our GDP will shrink another 2.7% going into the fall. Payrolls will shrink another 3.3% for at least another year, and unemployment will peak at 10.8%.

So simply going by averages, this recession should end this year, maybe even in this quarter or the next. If things go bad, or no worse than in the last 60 years, we might not pull out of it until late this year, with lousy employment figures lagging into 2010.

After all of this, remember that none of the previous recessions was ended by the government spending a trillion dollars. Our current deficit is projected to be 7% of GDP or more. The deficit never exceeded 6% of GDP in any of the previous 10 recessions, or at any time since 1946. That projection, folks, is the result of trying to spend your way out of recession. So, as I have said before, when you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING. Sooner or later that hole is going to get so deep that what you are trying to shovel out is actually just falling back on top of you. And if you have any common sense, you will understand that you are soon going to bury yourself. Unfortunately, those in “leadership” in this country haven’t figured that out yet. Have you?


Data Sources:
Unemployment data came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/. Click on "historical tables" under unemployment rate.
GDP and payroll data came from Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics via the St. Louis Federal Reserve's Economic Data -- FRED: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/, specifically Series GDPC96 and Series PAYEMS.

The Stimulus Bill that Isn't

The Democrats are dancing in the aisles as the Republicans vote against the so-called Stimulus Bill. They are claiming that the Republicans don’t really care about the country—the middle class or lower class—only the rich and corporations. You know, the same old song-and-dance they have been playing for the past two years since they became the majority in Congress and still haven’t done anything more than pass useless legislation that has lead to the loss of more jobs. I am sure you can remember the minimum wage bill and what many said would happen when it was passed. Look around, ’cause the “I told you so” is in order.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have finally grown some “spine” (I’ll be nice) and are, hopefully, standing up for what they were originally—small government and tight fiscal policy—instead of the spend, spend, spend that they have shown for the past 6 years.

Another thing that is happening, and for certain the big spending Democrats like Pelosi and Reid don’t like, is that some in their own party are having time to actually think about what they are voting for and are beginning to see that this is a Spending Bill, not a Stimulus Bill, and that there is too much PORK included in the mess. Obama did not want this to happen because it slows down his dash for the “superman” title in the first 100 days. He keeps repeating, “imminent,” “needs to be done immediately,” “it is not something we need to hesitate in doing,” etc., etc., but it isn’t working, thankfully. The longer the Republicans and a few Democrats can keep stalling this mess, the more the give-away pork items will be removed, just like the contraceptive spending and the re-sodding of the mall area. Those were drops in the bucket compared to the items that need to be removed.

Let’s see: $1 billion for Amtrak, the failed federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, which is really a great job stimulator (said tongue-in-cheek); $400 million for global-warming research; and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. What are they going to do, put folks to work making “carbon spirit catchers”? There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

How about renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment and create few if any immediate jobs? Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to ... guess which party?

They have spent billions bailing out the auto industry, but that evidently wasn’t enough, so Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. Why? For part time employees to enjoy? The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; I love the Smithsonian, too, but it’s not a job creator.

Another “stimulus” secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments—not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. It has been estimated that these so-called tax cuts will work out to be about $12 a week. Not much you can do on $12 a week, and the majority of folks who get it will spend it not on food, but on beer and cigarettes. Don’t believe me? Check out who spends the most on these items, especially cigarettes—the poor. There's $81 billion for Medicaid; $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits; $20 billion for food stamps; and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. If someone can tell me how this is a job creator and will stimulate the economy, I am waiting to hear it. It is a tooth fairy story and won’t fly, folks. Poor people do not create jobs, period, and those who pay no taxes certainly do nothing to deserve a refund. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the ten federal job-training programs, and many more. These are failed programs from Johnson’s Great Society program and need to be scuttled or seriously remade. The SBA is a joke; just ask anyone who has tried to deal with this level of bureaucrats.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That’s more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that “No recipient ... shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools.” Looks like the Democrats of Queen Pelosi and Sir Court Jester Reid want to cut out any non-union teachers or programs. Talk about a payback! We used to call it vote-buying, but now it is the norm.

Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There’s another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports, and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities. Then add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, which should be much higher because they are the ones who create jobs. Why not “stimulate” the “job creators,” and make it mandatory that the jobs be created in the U.S. for U.S. workers and that none of it can be used in overseas employment. Do that, and you have something that will work to improve the economy today.

By my estimate and from what I can find online, only $90 billion out of the proposed $825 billion stimulus package, or about 12 cents of every dollar, is designated for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And many of those projects aren't even likely to help the economy immediately.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living—or dead—Democratic interest group. As Queen Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit, and then in 2010 and 2012, they can explain how spending trillions of dollars did nothing but put us deeper in the hole.

****Here are the names of the Democrats who voted for their country and not the party when it came to this ill-conceived spending bill. They are to be congratulated. If you notice most of them do not represent heavily “entitlement dependent” districts. These few should be congratulated for putting America first.

Reps. Bobby Bright (Ala.), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Walt Minnick (Id.), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), and Jim Cooper (Tenn.).

Are We Really Ready for Socialized Medicine?

Folks may be getting more than they asked for. People paying attention to 30 second sound bites on this subject will allow it to come to fruition. It seems that people can no longer read or at least can not read anything longer than the McDonald or Starbucks menu and be expected to comprehend it. Of course understanding the ingredients in their favorite latte is easier and vastly more enjoyable than understanding what socialized medicine will be like. Some of us older folks can understand a bit about it, at least those who have experienced the Medicare wonderment and general FUBAR(Fouled Up Beyond All Repair for those who were never in the military) made by the Feds out of this ill conceived and rapidly thought up program. The same results will be found in the new socialized medicine that is about to be foisted upon us. It has been talked about and argued for years but without any actual thought of how the thing is suppose to work or how it will be paid for over then next 10 years much less over then next generations to come. I hear the argument for single payer systems from many who actually don’t have a clue or have failed to look at the current singer payer system that is rapidly falling apart.
I see young doctors regularly who run at the thought of going into family practice. I have friends who are doctors and in family practice and are now on the verge of losing all that they have worked for. They can not pay the bills because the program does not work in other words the government doesn’t pay the bills on time if ever. They continue to treat patients while their kids wear hand me downs and their car continually needs repairs. That’s called dedication but dedication will not go very far in feeding and housing their kids. So take time to read this. Yes , it’s a bit long but reading something as important as this will go much further than the 30 second sound bites that you will soon be receiving by way of the boob tube. It pays to be informed!
Just a note concerning an item that is thrown into the so called Stimulus Bill that would give government MORE control over health care and treatment than any other plan other than Hillary’s failed 1990’s plan. The stimulus legislation would create a council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. This is about medicine but not about healing the economy. The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.
The next secretary of health and human services, Tom Daschle, has advocated a "Federal Health Board" similar to the CER, whose recommendations "would have teeth": Congress could restrict the tax exclusion for private health insurance to "insurance that complies with the Board's recommendation." The CER, which would dramatically advance government control — and rationing — of health care, should be thoroughly debated, not stealthily created in the name of "stimulus."
Talk about raw socialism ! But then coming from someone like Daschle what do you expect.

A Health Care Model For Failure
Taken from INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Socialized Medicine: Anyone who thinks a national single-payer system would be an improvement isn't paying attention. Medicare, which provides coverage for less than 15% of the population, can't get it right.
The federal government seems to always be in a hurry to dole out pork, but it has problems reimbursing doctors who see Medicare patients.
Payments have been so late in some cases that doctors from New York to California have had little choice but to take out loans — some as large as $3 million — to bridge the gap.
The late payments, which can be over $100,000, are only part of the problem for doctors.
In too many instances, the compensation that is eventually provided by Medicare — an amount determined by bureaucrats, not the market, and is therefore subject to error — is simply not enough to cover the physicians' costs.
"When I saw a Medicare patient with pneumonia and they needed a shot that cost $30, and Medicare would reimburse only $21, I gave him the shot," Eugene Wood, a recently retired Jackson physician, told the Mississippi Business Journal last fall.
"I went ahead and practiced good medicine. But I just kept going in the hole."
The trend toward late and below-cost reimbursements creates trouble at two levels.
First, some doctors are cutting back on the number of Medicare patients they see — limiting medical care access for the elderly who rely on Medicare and have paid into it for 40 years or more.
Still others found that they have had to lay off staff and trim their own salaries to continue their practices.
Second, the arrangement kills incentives for medical school students to practice family medicine, which already seems to be a dying art, as only 8% of 2006 U.S. medical school graduates opted for family practices. That's about half the number of graduates who were choosing to go into family practice in the early 1990s.
Making $150,000 a year right out of school might sound like a dream to many, but when doctors owe a year's salary and often more in medical school student loans, their handsome incomes don't look as attractive. A family physician has to be as good a businessman as a doctor if he is to keep his practice above water.
If this is the mess that Medicare is producing, imagine the intractable complications that a universal government system would bring.
Who would want to practice medicine under those conditions? Where will sick Americans go when doctors are fleeing practices and the demand for care under a "free" system outstrips supply?
Medicare and Medicaid, the program for low-income Americans, cover a quarter of the U.S. population and will account for a fourth of federal outlays this year.
No matter how much a Washington player promises that he or she can bring health care costs down through a national system, the numbers say that under a universal program, the entire federal budget will be dedicated to providing health care.
Like it or not — and we don't — Medicare and Medicaid, both established in 1965, have become deeply embedded in the American fabric. They will not go away. The best we can hope for is some sort of reform that lessens the taxpayers' liabilities and increases the responsibility of individuals.
What the country doesn't need is universal care. If universal care is the only alternative, we'd prefer the status quo.
But even that's trouble. Already Medicare's Hospital Insurance is paying out more in benefits than it takes in from tax revenues. By next year, outlays for the entire program will exceed income. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted by 2019.
System trustees estimate that over the long term, Medicare will have $36 trillion in obligations that aren't funded under the current setup. That, according to analysts at the Heritage Foundation, means "every American household's share of Medicare's unfunded obligation is like a $320,000 IOU."
If Washington can't run a program for 44.1 million people without bankrupting the nation, how can it possibly operate a national health care system for more than 300 million? Think about it!

What I Am Learning About Blogging

I’ve only been at this blogging thing for about a year now, and I am learning a few things as I go along, slowly maybe, but learning just the same.

One of the things I’ve learned is that people don’t like to comment on controversial subjects or subjects that take a lot of real thought. Recently, I wrote a piece on “Obama, the Genocidal President,” that included an article by a prominent Black minister giving facts to back up the title. Since the “thought police” or the “blog Gestapo” has not been activated yet, I thought it would be safe to post such an article and hoped to get the thoughts of others on the subject.

My next post was on the economy titled “Throw away the shovels and stop digging.” I retrieved an article from The Australian newspaper by a prominent Australian economist. He offered an alternative to repairing the economy and showed how the policies that this administration has adopted have failed in the past and will certainly fail once again. The crux of the article was that government spending does not create wealth, and it does not solve the problems that have been created, basically, by government interference. Apparently, no one had an opinion on this subject since no one posted a comment. I am left puzzled as to how to interpret this: Do people agree with him or disagree with him?

My questions are these: Are people afraid to comment on difficult issues such as these? Does it require too much thought for people to respond? Would they rather have some mundane post of the generic type relating to the goings on in the government or the country where they can sound off without really having to give a great deal of thought to the subject, or where they can either poke fun or bash the object of the post?

I went back through all my posts for the past year, just over 130 or so, and found that the ones that were more serious and required a little more thought, both in reading and commenting, got the fewest comments. Those that were lighter and required little thought, other than venting or making fun, received more replies. The exception was the posts relating to illness and such.

This gives me cause for concern. Some time ago, I read an article stating that people have forgotten how to think, how to reason together and wrestle through difficult ideas to come up with good possibilities or solutions. I admit that even writing this scares the #&@% out of me. Have we become like sheep who will passively follow anyone with the intestinal fortitude to get up and lead, no matter where they are going? Have we passively surrendered to those who tell us how to think, feel, and judge matters? Have we stopped fighting for what is right because we may have to get out of our comfort zones?

So, as I ponder what I have learned about blogging, I have begun to ask myself: Should I stick with the bland, the mundane, the "no brainer” posts, or should I continue to offer something of substance? Of course, the extension of that question is: Should I stop blogging altogether and just post on other blogs?

I will await the verdict from those who read this blog. I know there are many out there who are reading, even though there are few replies. The numbers on my stats show this to be factual. So what is the verdict? Continue posting thoughtful posts, post no brainers, or stop altogether? But first, I urge everyone to exercise the grey matter on this:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Throw Away the Shovels and Stop Digging

It seems that more than one economist is saying the same thing. Throw away the shovels and stop digging. Would someone please explain this to the President , the Democrats and the idiot Republicans who have fallen for this claptrap! But lest I forget, throwing away shovels won't buy votes.

Keynesian policies are not the answer

John Montgomery | January 28, 2009

Article from: The Australian

"WHEN you are in a hole, stop digging." This sensible law was coined by Denis Healey, Britain's chancellor of the exchequer during the 1970s. Unfortunately, Healey did not take his own advice. Under his stewardship government finances collapsed, leading to the humiliating need to borrow from the International Monetary Fund. Within a year, Margaret Thatcher was in Downing Street. She revived Britain's fortunes by returning to sound money, cutting government spending, cutting taxes and allowing failing industries to go to the wall.

This is the exact opposite to the economic policy being followed in the US by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, by Gordon Brown in Britain, and by Kevin Rudd here in Australia. Instead of sound money, the policy is one of throwing good money after bad.

The new policy of demand management through government spending - known as Keynesianism - will not work. It never has, for the simple reason that governments cannot run economies and they do not create wealth. By throwing government money around in any number of bail-outs, infrastructure programs and pet social projects, governments are running up debt and simultaneously failing to revive the economy.

Take, for example, the case made for infrastructure investment or public capital spending. The Keynesian argument is that this pumps money into the economy and helps fuel recovery and growth. This, the Left argues, was behind the success of Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s. But the New Deal was not a success: the recession was deep and lasted 10 years. It was the tooling up for World War II that ended the Great Depression, and the return of growth in the private sector. The New Deal actually made things worse because it delayed the recovery in the private sector. Similar policies were followed under national socialism in Germany: the building of autobahns, canals, dams, railways, airports, organic farming around the cities. Money was also pumped into the car industry.

Of course, there were infrastructure projects carried out at this time, no doubt many of them a good thing, including the Hoover Dam and the Tennessee Valley water project in the US. But they had little effect on reflating the economy in any immediate sense or even over a period of 10 years. The reason for this is that of funds committed to any project, only about 10 per cent is spent in the early years of planning and engineering. Moreover, most of what is spent goes on materials and land rather than on the payroll. From about year three of any project, at best 35 per cent of spending will feed into the economy in the form of wages and salaries. So capital projects take a long time to get up and running, and their economic impact is less than 35 per cent of total spending. By the time a large project is completed, the recovery in the economy should already be well under way. That is, if there is a recovery.

The most worrying thing about Keynesianism is that governments raise the money they spend from borrowing, issuing new bonds and, eventually, printing money. Printing money is a sure-fire recipe for inflation: real inflation, not the modest 3per cent of 2008 that was occasioned simply by movements in prices and the cost of oil. Real inflation is where your currency loses value because there are too many notes in circulation. The National Socialists introduced Mefo bills for this very purpose. In the US, Roosevelt introduced Swopism, a kind of corporate economy, based on the idea of nation-building and national unity, where big business and government effectively undermined free market competition.

Solving one problem will likely cause another, in this present case the return of inflation from about 2012. To deal with this, monetary policy will again be tightened, and by about 2016 there will be another mild recession. The pattern of boom and bust will continue, made worse not better by central intervention.

Cutting taxes and interest rates is a more straightforward and more immediate policy mechanism in normal times. Of course, the banking collapse made the recession we were already heading into - thanks to the interest rate hikes of 2006-2008 - much worse. Now the problem is a lack of liquidity as banks refuse to lend to each other. The reason they are so reluctant is that no one knows where all the bad debt from the US sub-prime mortgage fiasco is. So while the various banking bailouts have bought time and prevented a sudden run on the banks, they have not solved the basic problem of bad debt. In my view, it is now time to let a few banks go under in order to flush out the poison. After all, giving taxpayers' money to the banks to sit tight and not lend to anyone is in no one's interest.

My proposal then is to cut the government bank deposit guarantee to a sensible level - say $100,000 - and advise people to spread their savings among a number of accounts to that limit. At the same time, governments should freeze any loans they have made to the banks. The more money is moved around, the less control the banks will have and those that have the worst debts will fail.

Having thus cleaned out the stables, policy can then stimulate the private sector by a combination of low interest rates and tax cuts. Economic recovery will then follow, without the need for governments to hawk all our futures. This is because the fundamentals of economic life are still strong: new markets, new technologies, new demographics, new centres of wealth and new consumers. This is not rocket science. Capitalism will recover, but only when governments get out of the way and stop spreading doom and panic. I just hope Obama gets it before it is too late.

John Montgomery is a writer and consultant on economic development and urban growth. His latest book, The New Wealth of Cities, is published by Ashgate (2007).

Obama - The Genocidal President

American history books frequently mention the lynching of African-Americans; one count from 1882 to the 1960s records 3,445 blacks dying that way. Other facts, though, go generally unrecorded: Since 1973 the number of aborted African-American babies totals 12 million, and every day in the United States some 1,500 die through abortion. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, more than 43 percent of African-American pregnancies end in abortion. Although African-Americans represent only 12 percent of the American population, they account for almost 35 percent of all abortions. In Mississippi, for example, while African-Americans represent only 37 percent of the population, they account for 73 percent of the state's abortions. More than 78 percent of Planned Parenthood's abortion centers are in or near minority communities.

Many are not aware of the abortion industry's focus on African-Americans that began in 1939 with Margaret Sanger's involvement with the Negro Project. Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, supported the project's mission of promoting sterilization and birth control among African-Americans because she believed that "the procreation of this group should be stopped."

And now this same community that has been targeted for elimination which certainly would be called genocide by the Democrats if such were occurring in another country such as the Sudan , or Uganda, has elected the most genocidal President to ever hold office. This President has extended this genocide to the rest of the world through his executive order undoing what former President Bush had accomplished by stopping funding for abortion in foreign countries.

I congratulate Mr. Childress for standing up and saying what needs to be said and can only hope that the Black community as well as the misguided liberals who ignored Obama’s voting record in the Illinois Senate saying he will change will see just exactly what type of individual they have elected. I dare to hear the so called progressive liberals screaming about the genocide in other countries when they are allowing the same here in the United States of America all in the name of a “woman’s rights” . It seems they have forgotten the rights of those who can not yet speak.

The article below is from Mr. Childress website BlackGenocide.org. Mr. Childress, a registered Democrat, was called a "sell out" for promoting a Republican platform during the Presidential campaigning cycle, he insists that his concern "for the life of my people" stems from his convictions as a pastor rather than political motives. I believe he speaks the truth in this regard. I ask that those of you who read this blog to pass this along to your Black friends who failed to see anything but a man of color being President and to your perhaps misguided liberal friends who fail to understand that regardless of what they see as a “ woman’s right” is still murder.

Revelations of eugenic ideology and the racist practices of Planned Parenthood are unfolding more and more.

The public is just beginning to believe what people of conscience have known long ago: Planned Parenthood has diabolically perpetrated their murderous plot to surgically eliminate those they deem undesirable. In other words: kill the babies of unsuspecting minority women by aborting their children. Then, tell them this is a "good thing" for you and your people. No other ethnic group in the United States has been decimated more by abortion than the Afro-American community. The war being waged upon innocent captives in the womb is led by Planned Parenthood.

The strategy:

Convince the targeted community to accept their eugenic racist plan by selecting one from their ethnicity to promote it. One of Planned Parenthood's earliest known projects was in 1939. It was called the “Negro Project” -- a project designed to control the birth of "human weeds" which was how Margaret Sanger referred to colored people; a project designed to introduce abortion, sterilization and different forms of birth control. This is what a co-eugenic wrote to Margaret Sanger to make sure the "Negro Project" was a success:

Clarence Gamble, heir of Proctor and Gamble, wrote a memorandum in November, 1939 entitled: "Suggestions for the Negro Project." In the letter he suggested black leaders “be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge."

This is a letter to Clarence Gamble, from Margaret Sanger, in which she wrote,

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama became a "minister" of Planned Parenthood a long time ago. He's so good at carrying out their racist, murderous, agenda against Afro-Americans and society at large, they gave him a 100% score on his voting record. Planned Parenthood is following the strategy of their racist founder, Margaret Sanger, to the letter. Planed Parenthood is saying, “We have our poster boy! Get him out in front as a lure for their women and men. Get them into our abortion clinics and dismember their children by the millions!” You say absurd? No Way! Planned Parenthood’s Valentine cards were sent out to hundreds of thousands of young people in the nation. Whose face is plainly seen waving to them with a big smile? Whose endorsement is given to this racist and calloused organization? Who is used to lure children to give credibility to its hideous plot? Barack Obama, that's who!

On July 17, 2007, Barack Obama said the following before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund:

"Thank You, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! ($) Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country-and for men who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country. I want to thank Cecile Richards (national president of Planned Parenthood) for her extraordinary leadership. I am happy to see so many good friends here today, including Steve Trombley and Pam Sutherland from my home state of Illinois. We had a number of battles down in Springfield from many years and it's wonderful to see that they are here today"

The first friend mentioned is, Cecile Richards, who he commends for extraordinary leadership in killing babies who are disproportionately black.

The second is, Steve Trombley, who is the president of Planned Parenthood Chicago. You can imagine how many of our young women have been victimized and whose pre-born children were killed under his supervision. His third friend he mentions is, Pam Sutherland. She is the State CEO of Planned Parenthood for Illinois. America needs to know how much these folks were, and continue today, to be in the head and actions of Senator Barack Obama. How much did he compromise his own values?

I choose here to quote Dr. Martin Luther King from his last Sunday sermon before his death:

"There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. I believe today that there is a need for all people of goodwill to come with a massive act of conscience and say in the words of the old Negro Spiritual, ‘We ain't goin' study war no more.’"

This is the challenge facing modern man.

When the challenge came to Barack Obama to call on conscience, he refused. What most Americans would say no to, he chooses to say, yes to! He refused to do what The Dream called for: to allow your conscience to tell you what is right and what would be wrong. You may ask, why, but always remember this observation: Abortion is a lot like slavery; if it was not lucrative, it would not have been legal!

Pam Sutherland ... of ... Illinois Planned Parenthood ... told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."

Let me interpret. We, Planned Parenthood, told him what to say, and how to say it, so we could continue to kill infants; babies, just a few inches from birth, and those completely out of the womb that we missed! Our "colored minister" was well prepared by Planned Parenthood. Partial Birth abortion -- which I will not describe here -- but know that 80% of Americans don't want this barbaric act practiced in this country – Barack Obama voted to keep legal! The Born Alive Victims Act is a law to protect a child that was born alive after a botched abortion; a law that would require that the child would receive medical assistance. Barack Obama voted against it! Yes. Barack Obama, with an "engaging personality" is being used by the leading abortion provider in the United States to promote and execute infanticide of predominately minority babies!

And what are most Afro-Americans saying? "Yes We Can! Yes We Can! Yes We Can!" They are ignoring conscience. They are ignoring The Dream!

“I have a Dream, that one day, my four little children, will live in a world where that they won't be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character ….”

Yes, I believe it would be wonderful to have a Black man as president, but it's more important for there to be, God's man as president, and that his character would reflect my values; values reflected in the 10 Commandments and our Declaration of Independence. While most African-Americans are applauding him for the color of his skin, they have failed to look at closely the content of his character.

Martin Luther King, while sitting in a Birmingham jail, without the internet, cell phone, library resources, or communication from the outside, penned that famous prophetic letter to answer some local Pastors who questioned his use of public demonstrations. Martin, in a portion of his letter, discussed the responsibility of the church to address social issues. He said, "… the early church put an end to such evils as infanticide." Martin Luther King wrote from the passion of his spirit -- the spirit that was fighting for justice and equality. Martin called infant killing evil. Barack Obama calls it “a women's right.” Martin Luther King made his observation from a jail cell, having been put there for defending the civil rights of those whom had been denied theirs. Barack Obama has made his from caucusing with those who profit from the destruction of babies in the womb. These are men and women who ignore the silent screams of a lost generation.

Another quote from Dr. Martin Luther King that would be so appropriate here is, “The Negro cannot win if he chooses to sacrifice the future of his children for immediate comfort and safety." It is now imperative we all hear the words of this great Prophet of God. It is obvious we must reject the “Barack Obamas” who have placed us in great danger by their ideologies, a position Martin Luther King warned us we cannot expect to win! Can we trust Barack Obama's judgment? I think not.

Yes, Margaret Sanger would love Barack Obama …. Her protégés certainly do

.

It Didn't Take Long For The Truth To Out.

"I will be your president, too." (To those who voted against him.) Quote from Obama's Victory speech.

But now that he has taken office, what is he saying?

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. (That is why Obama, Queen Pelosi, Court jester Reid, and the rest of the crooks Obama has put into place plan to shut down conservative radio with the re-birth of the Fairness Act. I’ve yet to see what is fair about it, but then the Dems will make it fair because they can’t stand the heat and want only one side of the story to be told. Now, to them, that’s fairness. Of course, the fact that MSNBC, CNN, the rest of the alphabet networks and cable news, along with the NYT and the one sided print media is all far left doesn’t matter a whit to them.)

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts. If you believe the point on bipartisan efforts, then you believe in the tooth fairy. Oh, I forgot, the Zombies that voted for him believe that he is the tooth fairy and all the other fairies rolled into one. "There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today. In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the President shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that." (“I will be the President for ALL people ...” Of course, he will, as long as you agree with his programs. If you don’t, remember, "I WON.")

Not that Obama was gloating. (More of the LSM double speak; Of course, he was gloating, he’s arrogant. Worse than Bush. And if you disagree with him, then you are a racist.) He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on the stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers. (Dang right, he’s going to get his way. He intends to cram whatever socialist program that George Soros wants down the throats of the people of this country. Hope you Zombies who voted for this empty suited, unqualified, George Soros sock puppet are really happy. You don’t think he won’t throw you under the bus? Then you evidently have been drinking too much of the Zombie kool-aide and failed to see what has happened to those he believes are in his way.)

It’s going to be a long four years, or perhaps just two if the conservatives will get their act together and throw out the Democrats in the House and Senate in 2010. As it stands, it ain’t looking good folks.

Hits and Misses at the Coronation

President Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th President. His wife sticks out her tongue at Chief Justice Roberts who, according to the left wing New York Times, stumbled over the oath just to embarrass the incoming President or to take away somehow from the moment. Perhaps he stumbled when he saw Michelle sticking out her tongue at him as if saying, “You’re screwed.” Note that “The One” is laughing.

The Misses:

It should be noted that “The One” couldn’t get through the swearing in ceremony and get it right without the aid of a teleprompter. While the NYT is blaming Roberts for the stumble, it should be noted that the replay shows “The One” in error. But, lordy, don’t even mention it or you will be accused of hate crimes.

MSNBC's play-by-play clears it up.

First, Obama jumped in before the "do solemnly swear" phrase, which seemed to throw the chief justice off his stride. Roberts rendered the next phrase as "that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully."

"That I will execute," Obama repeated, then paused like a school teacher prompting his student with a slight nod. Roberts took another shot at it: "The off ... faithfully the pres ... the office of President of the United States."

Then, of course, came the highlight of the day when the old “race baiter,” the so-called Reverend Joseph Lowery ended his prayer with more racial hatred: “… so brown can stick around, yellow can be mellow and white can do what is right.” Get ready for four years of this type of action by those like the Rev. Lowery and his ilk.

It seems the LSM, as usual, has not posted this outrageous racial comment on any of the websites, so I suppose the link will have to wait until the hoopla dies down and a real news agency gets the story and posts it online where the rest of the country can see what is in store for the future.

The leftwingers at the coronation could not hold their ignorance in check and booed President Bush as he took the platform. The left has preached for the past 8 years the “why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along” sermon, but when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, it doesn’t apply to them.

Unfortunately, the speech was flat and really said nothing that will be remembered as uniting or strengthening the country. Wall Street didn’t think so either and fell and fell and fell until the ending bell.

The Hits:

It finally over ... well, except for the parade, which was the longest in the history of such an event. But that was to be expected; the anointed one has arrived. The question is, when will the same crowd be calling, “Crucify him. Crucify him!" My guess is as soon as they realize that the check is not in the mail, he isn't paying the mortgage, filling up your gas tank, or lighting up your life.

It's going to be a fun four years, and I can’t wait until those who elected “The One” realize that they are the ones he was talking about when he said, "I am a blank slate ... however, some will be disappointed.”

Does that mean that I wish failure upon Mr. Obama? No, it does not as long as he is directing this country to be a stronger country and not a weakened socialist state. I will applaud him when he does something right, but I will give him absolutely no quarter when the direction is toward socialism and more big government. I did the same thing in the last administration and, believe me, I had ample opportunity to call them to task for spending like “drunken sailors.” It seems they forgot the promise made for a smaller government and attempted to out-democrat the democrats. They failed, for no one can spend other people's money better than the democrats of the last dozen years. We are seeing the sad results of the democrats' spending habits that commenced in fervor in 2006.

This President has not had the opportunity to carry out his tax and spend ideology, one which failed in the 30s, failed in the 60s under Johnson, and will surely fail again if that is the road he chooses. We can only hope that he will pick up a history book, written by someone other than a revisionist, and see that FDR’s programs were, for the most part, total failures and only served to stay the depression longer. We have seen the failures of the Great Society; the programs that have survived are dinosaurs and need to be cast aside as relics from the past, and new, leaner, more useful programs designed.

The new President said that we need to stand on our own two feet, but that cannot be done as long as the government is propping up those who choose not and will not stand on their own. Today’s budget deficits have been fueled by entitlement programs that have done nothing except to create a welfare, nanny state. It’s time to say good-bye to that type of society.

The President has called for a change in Washington and the way things are done. Let him begin by dismantling the nanny state and making this a country that once again understands that, if you want to prosper, it is up to you and not the government. If he can do this, then he will have brought real change to Washington and to this country. If he takes the different road, then it will only be more of the same.

CHANGE WE CAN DO WITHOUT

US Flag Code: “The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”

WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA?

On 20 January, Barack Hussein Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of our United States , according to our Constitution. However, his largest constituencies tend to view this event as either the coronation of the "royal one" or the ordination of the "holy one."

Before we further define those constituencies, here, for the record, is a recap of the survey data concerning the presidential election.

Some 136.6 million Americans voted -- a 64.1 percent turnout and the highest since 1908. Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote (53 percent) since Jimmy Carter. By sex, BHO's support was 49 percent male and 56 percent female. By ethnic group, his support comprised 41 percent of Whites, 61 percent of Asians, 75 percent of Latinos and 95 percent of Blacks. By age, BHO's largest support demographic was 66 percent of voters under the age of 30. By income, 52 percent of voters with more than $200,000 in annual income voted for Obama. By education, his support came from those without a college degree and those with a post-graduate degree.

So, his victory was largely due to support from non-whites, from those under 30, from those with the lowest income and education, and from a small number of voters at the other end of those spectrums, while those of middle age, income and education tended to support John McCain.

By religion, Obama received support from 46 percent of Protestant voters, 56 percent of Catholic voters and 62 percent of voters of other religions. BHO received 76 percent of atheist and agnostic voters.

The Barna Research Group looked at some other interesting characteristics of Obama voters: 57 percent of those who consider themselves "lonely or isolated," 59 percent of those affected by the economic decline in "a major way," and 61 percent of those who claim they are "stressed out" supported BHO.

So, considering the stats, the Democrats' strategy of fomenting dissent and disunity by promoting themes of disparity was vital to Obama's election. Indeed, the Left's political playbook has only one chapter defining their modus operandi -- "Divide-n-Conquer." No wonder their national leadership calls itself the DnC.

Obama's largest constituent groups fall under the general umbrella of "disenfranchised victims," those who feel they are ethnically or economically handicapped. Other significant constituent groups are those who identify with the disenfranchised; this includes two small but highly ideologically influential groups, the economic and academic elite.

The disenfranchised victim groups and those who identify with them have a number of common characteristics. They have a low civic IQ and virtually no understanding of our Constitutional Republic and its heritage and legacy of liberty.

(This was determined through a study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute is more relevant to understanding why Barack Obama received so much support from those between 18 and 30 years of age -- support that put him over the top.

For the last two years, ISI has assessed the civil literacy of young people at American colleges and universities, testing both students and faculty. The civics test included a cross section of multiple-choice questions about our system of government, history and free enterprise -- questions to assess the knowledge that all Americans should possess in order to understand their civic responsibility and make informed decisions in matters such as elections.

More than 14,000 freshmen and seniors at 50 schools nationwide were given the 60-question exam. More than 50 percent of freshmen and 54 percent of seniors failed the test. (So they get dumber?)

This year, ISI went beyond the "institutions of higher learning" to assess civic literacy across demographic groups. The 2008 civics quiz asked similar questions to those asked to college and university students in previous years, but also included questions about civic participation and policy issues. The results were then subjected to multivariate regression analysis in order to determine if college and university graduates had a higher civic IQ than the rest of society.

As you might expect, 71 percent of Americans failed the test, with an average score of 49. Educators did not fare much better, scoring an average of 55 percent. As the researchers noted, "Fewer than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government, a minimal requirement for understanding America's constitutional system."

College grads flunked, answering 57 percent of the questions correctly, compared to 44 percent for high school grads.

Less than 24 percent of those with college degrees knew that the First Amendment prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States. Further, only 54 percent can correctly identify the basic tenets of the free enterprise system.

Would you be shocked to know that elected officials have a lower civic IQ than the public they ostensibly serve? Indeed, these paragons of representative government answered just 44 percent of the questions correctly. Almost a third of elected officials could not identify "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as the inalienable rights in our Declaration of Independence.

They have fully bought into the Politics of Disparity or "class warfare which is best described by the mantra so often heard during the past 8 years. Anyone who has done their homework knows that this is a total myth but repeated often enough there will be those who will believe anything.

The purveyors of classism have sought to further their careers by way of economic propaganda. Typical of this bumper-sticker logic are slogans such as "billions for war, but nothing for the poor," and the current favorite being trotted out to highlight deficits, "tax cuts for the rich."

However, it is Obama's small economic and academic elite constituencies who pose the greatest danger to that heritage of liberty. They neither know nor care any more about liberty than the disenfranchised legions with which they seek to identify. They are the "king makers," those who have funded and charted Obama's course to the coronation.

Some have made a lot of "easy money," which explains why Obama received far more support from Wall Street than McCain. Others are inheritance-welfare liberals, those who value government welfare dependence because they were, themselves, dependent on inheritance throughout their formative years and never developed the character necessary to succeed on their own initiative.

Whether fast money or inheritance, neither group has direct contact with the unwashed masses other than those who keep their homes, offices and imported autos clean and in good repair. This utter dependence upon the low end of the "service sector" is perhaps the source of the insecurities that drive them to identify with the masses.

Obama's academic elite are just as insecure, but they are driven by ideology. They are Leftists, Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas. Regular readers of this column will recognize them as "Useful Idiots" for their advocacy of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism. Like Obama, they reject constitutional authority and subscribe to the errant notion of a Living Constitution

Among Obama's Left elite are such Marxist radicals as Frank Marshall Davis and William Ayers and his religious mentor Jeremiah Wright.

There are some characteristics that are common to many BHO supporters among both the disenfranchised and the elite.

Obama's cult-like following among these constituencies is not the result of deception. In fact, it can be attributed to something much more subtle and, potentially, sinister, with far more ominous implications for the future of liberty.

Most of Obama's supporters identify with some part of his brokenness, his dysfunctional childhood and his search for salvation in the authority of the state. The implications of this distorted mass identity are grave, and its pathology is well defined.

Another common characteristic is that liberals tend to be very emotive Ask them about some manifestation of their worldview -- for example, why they support candidates such as Obama or Hillary Clinton and they will likely predicate their response with, "Because I feel..."

On the other hand, ask conservatives about what they believe or support, and they invariably predicate their response with, "Because I think..."

So, the once great Democrat Partyhas now devolved into constituencies who view the inaugural as either a coronation or an ordination.

Of course, all the MSM print and tube outlets are fawning over BHO and calling next Tuesday's inaugural "historic." Well, it's not often that I agree with the paper media and 24-hour news cycle talkingheads, but this is truly a historic inauguration -- historic for several reasons.

First, never before has such an ill-prepared president-elect been sworn in as president. Second, never before has a more liberal president-elect been sworn into office. And third, never before has a candidate had so little regard for the constitutional oath he is taking.

Oh, and some suggest this election is historic because half of the president-elect's genetic heritage is African -- and here I thought Bill Clinton was our first "black president."

It is no small irony that the day before Obama's inauguration, the nation will pause to honor Martin Luther King. In 1963, King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his most famous oration, the most well known line from which is, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

But Obama and his party have divided the nation into constituency groups judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual character King envisioned.

Perhaps the most famous line from any Democrat presidential inaugural was uttered by John F. Kennedy in 1961. He closed his remarks with these words: "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Barack Obama and his party have turned that clarion call on end, suggesting that their constituents should "ask what your country can do for you."

On Tuesday, Barack Obama will take an oath "to support and defend the Constitution", but he has no history of honoring our Constitution, even pledging that his Supreme Court nominees should comport with Leftist ideology and "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted."

Some have suggested that since the election is over and Obama is the victor, we should accord him the honor due his office. But if he does not honor his constitutional oath, why would anyone extend him the honor of its highest constitutional office?

Hattip: Patriot Post

OBAMA MOTHER-IN-LAW TO JOIN FAMILY IN WHITE HOUSE

Play Video AP –

• 
  

WASHINGTON – Get ready for the in-law in chief. (click for picture but be prepared!)

Transition officials said Friday that President-elect Barack Obama's mother-in-law, Marian Robinson, is moving into the White House to join Michelle Obama and their two children.

It's not clear whether the move will be permanent.

Katie McCormick Lelyveld, the press secretary for Michelle Obama, said Robinson would decide in coming months whether she wants to stay in Washington.

Robinson retired from her job as a bank executive secretary to help with her granddaughters during the campaign.

Do we really need anymore proof that this empty suit is as spineless as he has already shown himself to be through out his campaign and since the election? It certainly shows who wears the pants in the family and it ain't "The One" for sure.

Fred Sanford of "Sanford and Son" had a busy body sister in law who gave him gruff. George Jefferson of "Movin on up" had a bossy mother-in-law but difference is she didn't move in when they "Moved up". Maybe all the networks who felt the tingles in their legs and declare that we all work for "The One" and it's out duty to make him a sucess should join in a film a live show in the WH of "The One". They could call it Movin up to Pennsylvania Ave" staring "The One" his wife and his mother in law. The kids could be shown occasionally for some comic relief.

At least we can have something comical to laugh about while the country falls apart.

My Take On New Years

Well, the New Year arrived without me this year. As I was sitting on the sofa waiting for two folks who must be at least one slice of bread short of a sandwich to (1) Jump a truck over a pile of sand and make it turn a flip in the air; (2) Jump a motorbike to the top of a building. If he makes it, he looks like a hero. If he fails he either is splattered on the face of the building and the ground below or over shoots and lands five stories below on the street, with the same results as above…splat. Evidently both made it since there were no news stories on gossip channels on the First. Sitting around and watching something of that nature is also not my idea of entertainment and certainly not what I would want to say that I was doing on New Years Eve.

I had no desire to watch “the ball” drop in Times Square this year since I have probably watched it drop more than fifty times over the span of my lifetime and nothing new ever happens with the ball when it drops. In all those years it has managed to make it to the ground in one piece without creaming anyone standing under it or near by. No real excitement in watching something over and over again and knowing just exactly how it will turn out. Speaking of which, it sounds like the bunch we have in Congress who continue to do the same thing over and over again with no change in how they do it and still expecting a different outcome.

I spent too many years going to New Year’s Eve parties and most of the time all I got from that deal was a headache or stomach ache. Too much food and too much drink was the usual rule so I finally got over that need to indulge. Got to thinking about that deal as well and it was usually the same folks, the same food and the same results. Another one of the things that one has to ask why they continue to do the same thing with the same results over and over again each year.

Standing outside in cold weather watching fireworks is another thing that I have come to the conclusion is not worth the risk of catching pneumonia, getting frostbite or just generally freezing one’s rear off as the saying goes so I gave that up as well.

Folks say,” but you need to see the new year come in!” New what? I can stay up any other night and see the same thing and believe me there is not much new about watching the clock go from 11: 59 to 12:01. Is there suppose to be some kind of magical quality about going from December 31 to January 1? If so I must have missed it somewhere along the way.

The only thing new is that I now have to remember to write 2009 on the one check I write once a month for the water bill and it will take me at least three or four months to remember to do that. Eventually they will figure out that it is cheaper if they get the money on line automatically into their account and cheaper than staying open and having a herd of folks converging on the office on the first of every month. When they do that I will not have to write any paper checks and won’t have to remember what year I write on a piece of paper. Even churches have figured out that “paying “on line works. It seems that remembering to change the date on the checks takes a bit longer each year now but I can always put the blame on the fact that I don’t write checks much anymore.

Changing the year had to be an invention of government so they could have the excuse or what they would deem reason to raise your taxes. Now if they did that and the year didn’t change folks would wonder what the purpose of needing more money was. I figure it wouldn’t matter much to those folks anyhow but it makes them look better to say that they spent all you sent them last year and now they want you to send them some more to spend to supposedly make your life better. Naw, let me keep my money and I’ll figure some what to make my life better without the help of a bunch of folks who continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. I can assure them I can figure out something different to spend my money on each year and it won’t take that much thinking so let me just keep what I have and perhaps they can watch and learn.

I read that some of the folks who put on these shows in New York and such were disappointed in the turn out and blamed the economy. Heck, maybe folks are getting smarter and just stayed home and decided to save their money to spend for something they could use, and certainly for many of them, something they could remember other than a hangover. Makes sense to me!

Well, so much for New Year’s Eve and all the hoopla. I had a good nights sleep, woke up refreshed and evidently didn’t miss a thing. Nothing evidently occurred of earth shattering importance in Corinth , Texas or Dallas or other places or I am sure that I would have read about it. I read the obits and my name was not there and I didn’t see any of your names there either so looks like we all made it another day.

So I will conclude by saying, I hope that this day is better than yesterday and that the good Lord gives you all a lot of good tomorrows.