Palin Pulls a Pippen

Today Sarah Palin did what many have been wishing she would do for months. Leave politics. In a stunning move, she announced she would resign as governor of Alaska with 18 months to go in her term. While babbling about how this was a show of leadership, in the same breath she said she wasn't a quitter. Obviously she is not that Pit Bull with lipstick she claimed to be, but more like a pig with lipstick.

I found it strange she would try to use basketball terminology to reference her motives. She claimed it was similar to a point guard driving down the lane and passing the ball to another player to do the scoring. Well that's all fine and dandy, because that's what a leader does. We saw it quite often during the most recent NBA playoffs when LeBron James and Kobe Bryant found that this was the best option when being double and triple teamed. They did not wilt, or quit under the pressure from the opposition, they continued to lead.

Sarah Palin's move today was more like Scottie Pippin's refusal to go into a game when he was the self proclaimed leader of the Chicago Bulls when Michael Jordan decided to play baseball for a year. Pippin found out how tough it is to be a leader and was glad to relinquish the role back to Michael when he returned to basketball. In other words Sarah Palin, you don't lead by leaving the game in the fourth quarter and sitting on the bench. We're just not buying it and good riddance.

The "Curse of Jim Brown" still haunts Cleveland

The city of Cleveland has not won a championship since Jim Brown led them to the NFL title in 1964 against the Baltimore Colts winning 27-0. Brown retired from football just before the 1966 season because Art Modell would not give him time off during the preseason to finish filming "The Dirty Dozen". Ironically, the Browns returned to the championship game that year and lost to the Colts 33-0. As a 12year-old, I went down to Cleveland Stadium and bought a ticket to this game for $10 and froze my ass off. Cleveland sports has suffered the loss of many superstars and fan favorites over the years, many of which have gone on to win titles themselves.

Paul Warfield, Manny Ramirez, and Ron Harper were all part of Cleveland teams that made it to the championship game and eventually won with another team. They even got rid off a couple of good coaches that have gone on to win championships. I can remember when the Cavs hired Chuck Daly and he told them that he could win with James Edwards and Bill Laimbeer, who were considered journeymen in the NBA at the time. The Detroit pistons are forever grateful. Then the Cleveland fans and media ran Bill Belichick out of town because he said Bernie Kosar had"diminished skills" and traded him to Dallas, where Kosar got a Super Bowl ring riding the bench. And here is where the real irony comes in.

When Cleveland wouldn't remodel Cleveland Stadium or build a new one, Art Modell took his team to where? Baltimore, a city that also lost their beloved Colts, and he won a Super Bowl. Oh, and let's not forget the man who the team is named after, Paul Brown, who was run out of Cleveland, and then in 1970 the NFL rewarded him with the Cincinnati Bengals, who also won a Super Bowl. In actuality, the Steelers play in a division with three Browns franchises. By the way, the new Browns passed on several players that may have gotten them over the hump. They took Tim Couch over Donovan McNabb, and Joe Thomas over Adrian Peterson, the closest thing to Jim Brown I have seen.

The Cleveland Indians, I hate that name, finally made it to the World Series in the 90's, and ironically, the Atlanta Braves won their only World Series title during their National League Dynasty run against Cleveland. The NBA made sure Cleveland got LeBron James during their secret draft lottery, even though Lenny Wilkins threw the last game of the season when he was coaching the Toronto Raptors, guaranteeing Denver would have the worst record in the league. They played Cleveland that night and the Cleveland fans went into panic mode in fear of losing their homegrown hero. There is no doubt LeBron James will win a championship, but will he do it in Cleveland?

Cheney Has Put Military in Peril

Now that he is out of office, we are learning more about Dick Cheney's role in the Iraq war. It had always been speculated that he was running the show from behind the scenes and the more he talks publicly, the more we see how much influence or control he had, and also just how evil this man is. What were his true motives? One motive was the oil, the other was the rebuilding of a country you destroy using his company Halliburton.

According to Wikipedia, in recent years the company has become the object of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million. As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President. Some commentators have speculated on a possible conflict of interest from Cheney receiving deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton.

Bunnatine Greenhouse, a civil servant with 20 years of contracting experience, had complained to Army officials on numerous occasions that Halliburton had been unlawfully receiving special treatment for work in Iraq, Kuwait and the Balkans. Criminal investigations were opened by the U.S. Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Pentagon's inspector general that continue to this date (2/24/09). In one of the many examples of abuse, Greenhouse said that military auditors caught Halliburton overcharging the Pentagon for fuel deliveries into Iraq. She also complained that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office took control of every aspect of Halliburton's $7 billion no-bid Iraqi oil/infrastructure contract. After her testimony Greenhouse was demoted, allegedly for poor performance, though USACE. Greenhouse had received excellent performance ratings in the past

So in my opinion, I still believe Cheney has ties to this company along with Rumsfeld and they probably would lose a lot of potential income if the Iraq war was to end and Halliburton was not allowed to help rebuild Iraq. It will be interesting to see what happens when we leave. But the problem was starting this war in the first place. Though they try to convince the American public that this was a necessary war, common sense people knew different. Now those who are blindly patriotic have finally seen the light and put a man in charge who will try to fix this mess. But the problem is we have dug in so deep that our reputation is again at stake, much like it was in Viet Nam, and our military is being weakened by fighting in a place we never should have been.

Now we have true threats from countries like Iran and North Korea, who just conducted another illegal nuclear test yesterday. This test was conducted at an underground site in North Korea, and unlike their missile launch of a few months ago, they drew criticism from their Russian and Chinese allies as well. North Korea insists, as does Iran, that these nuclear weapons programs are vital to the defense of their countries. In a way, I can't blame any country that wants to protect itself from attack by having the same weapons as your attacker. You know the old saying, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. When you look back through history, that's how the United States stole most of this country from the Native Americans, and how most of the world super powers have controlled most of their territories around the world, through superior weaponry.

But we have also seen the United States hold the title of World Police mainly due to the fact that we are the only country to use the atomic bomb, and we used it on a mostly civilian population, just to show them we could eliminate them from the face of the Earth, and to send a message to the rest of the world. Since then, the Soviet Union (succeeded as a nuclear power by Russia), the United Kingdom, France, the People's Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, have all tested nuclear weapons, with North Korea being the real threat to world peace, as their leader is not a rational man. It is speculated that Israel also has nuclear weapons, as they are a real target in the Middle East, and Iran is using this as their excuse for needing these weapons. But Iran is at least willing to talk about their role in the nuclear world.

The best thing would be for every country to eliminate these weapons from their arsenal, but you know that would never happen, even if they all agreed to it. Somebody, including the U.S. would still try to horde these weapons "just in case", and now that nuclear power has been used as a reliable source of energy. you can't tell who is using it for what. Everyone misunderstood what Joe Biden meant when he said Pres. Barack Obama would face a major test from the international community in his first year as the leader of this country. What he really meant was no matter who got elected they would face this challenge, he was just campaigning for it to be his man and not John McCain.

Very few people have the "luxury" of knowing when or how they are going to die. I can think of three groups offhand. Terminally ill patients have a slight window as to the exact time, death row inmates, and suicide bombers. But we are headed for certain destruction with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and I can only hope that the Planet of the Apes is in the distant future.

Welcome Back Michael

I am glad to see Michael Vick finally released from prison. He got more time than he deserved only because he lied to the Feds about his role in his dog fighting operation. It has been documented that he received this sentence because he didn't cooperate with the authorities when first approached about this problem. This may be true, but how many people do cooperate when they are caught doing something illegal and you have no proof? They never could have convicted him without the testimony from his partners, who had gotten busted for something totally different, which led the authorities to the home where the dogs were kept. No, I am not condoning dogfighting or any other illegal activity, but let's compare a few cases that have involved high profile athletes in the past, starting with the most recent controversy in the news.

Everyone hated Barry Bonds for allegedly using steroids and not admitting it to the Grand Jury. They have no proof he used and everyone supposedly connected to Bonds, meaning his trainers that allegedly supplied him with steroids, refuse to roll over on him, going to jail to keep from testifying against him. Yet people have told on Roger Clemens and he continues to openly deny his roll in using steroids. Meanwhile players like Andy Petite, Jason Giambi, and other Yankee baseball players have been forgiven. Alex Rodriguez has admitted using steroids and has even lied about when he used them, but he is still being hailed as one of the greatest players of all time and the league still is promoting his image and counting his home runs as if he had done nothing wrong, hoping that one day he will surpass Bonds' record.

Let's go way back now to someone who lost time for standing up for what he believed. He didn't commit a crime, he just refused to enter the military because he didn't believe in the Viet Nam war. Yes, I'm talking about Muhammad Ali. At the time, many people were not going into the military and using their religion as a valid reason and were called "Conscientious Objectors", but when Ali refused to be inducted into the military in 1967, the Government refused to accept his religious stance and stripped him of his boxing license and took away his passport while he appealed the ruling. He was 25 at the time, and although Ali loses three years of his career due to this and is hated by many who feel he is unpatriotic, eventually Ali regains his popularity as the whole country starts to sour on the war during the 70's and Ali becomes a hero for standing up against the war.

The other boxer who missed time for a real crime was Mike Tyson who was convicted of rape, also at the age of 25 and also missed three years of his career while he sat in prison. But even though the evidence proved that he raped a woman, a lot of people couldn't wait for Mike to return to boxing because of his explosiveness in the ring. Kobe Bryant later found himself in almost the exact same situation as Tyson, but the woman he was with was not as believable as the woman Tyson raped. The strange thing about both of these cases is the perception most people have about hotels. It seems that if a woman comes to a man's hotel room alone it's ok to do whatever you want to her because that is what she is there for, especially if the man is a celebrity. So does that mean that every time I took a woman home from the club to my house I could have done whatever I wanted to her and gotten away with it, even when she objected? Or every time I invited a woman to my house for dinner and a movie, if she didn't leave by a certain time it meant she was fair game? Tell me what time that is so I know in the future.

The last example is something totally different. Michael Jordan retired from basketball in 1993 after winning his third straight NBA title. He had been criticized for being in a casino in Las Vegas the night before a playoff game, and later was said to have a major gambling problem. About a month after winning the title, his father was murdered and it was speculated that his death may have been related to gambling debts, although the official story attributed it to a random act of violence. In October he officially announced his retirement from basketball, saying he had lost his love of the game. That spring, he got with the owner of the Chicago White Sox, who also owned the Chicago Bulls, and signed a minor league contract to play professional baseball, claiming it was a wish he wanted to fulfill for his father. He stayed retired until March of 1995, returning just in time to lead the Bulls to the playoffs. They lost to Orlando that year, but won the title the next three years.

My point being is that we have accepted athletes back after layoffs. Michael Jordan missed just over 1 1/2 years of his career, while the two boxers missed over 3 1/2 years from their careers. Michael was 30 when he "retired" the first time, while the two boxers were both 25 when their careers were halted. Michael Vick will be 29 in about a month. Just like the other athletes, it's going to take awhile to get back to professional sports shape, but he's still young enough where his skills can still reach that professional level. Unlike the other three, Vick never reached that championship status, but Ali, Tyson and Jordan all regained their titles. So to think that Vick cannot play again is absurd, and I know he is determined to prove he can.

I know a lot of you animal lovers don't want him to succeed, but I'm a people lover, especially a woman lover. So if the American public can cheer for rapists like Mike Tyson and Kobe Bryant, I don't see a reason why Vick can't return to the career that he loves, as long as he proves he can still compete. Tyson never showed any remorse for what he did, yet he was released from prison early, serving only three years of a six year conviction. Besides, you never see PETA complaining about dogs that are put to death for attacking humans. I have never before seen so much publicity given to dogs, documenting that his 51 dogs could be rehabilitated after a career of fighting. A CNN report states that only one had to be put down because it was deemed too dangerous. If that is true, why can't they be rehabilitated after biting a human instead of being put to death? It also stated that half the dogs are in homes and the other half in a special sanctuary and not a shelter where they would have been put to death if no one claims them, like they do all other animals.

Lastly, Vick has served his time. This man has a lot to deal with and he should be bitter. I'm sure he had a chance to follow the case of Clifford Harris, better known as the rapper T.I, who was convicted of purchasing machine guns with silencers after being set up by his bodyguard. Now I like his music, he is a very talented young man, but he was already a convicted felon and if you know anything about his background, which he eloquently expressed in his TV show, you know his intentions were bad. But Vick had to spend more time in prison and is being vilified much worse than Harris, and he has lost much more money than Harris.

Plaxico Burris and Adam "Pacman" Jones had weapons related incidents that only warranted suspensions from the league, although Burris still faces weapons charges and his future is uncertain. What if Burris' gun had fell at a different angle and wound up shooting someone else? Why did he need a gun in the club anyway? How can you put Vick in a category that denies him a chance to return to his livelihood after he has served his time? What kind of society are we living in where we value animal life more than human life? I wish you the best Michael Vick and I hope you do the right thing.

The Return of Arrogant Ari

With all of the furor over the water boarding torture tactics, we have seen the emergence of the world's greatest liar Ari Fleischer. For those of you that don't know, Ari is the man who convinced America for George Bush that we should go to war in Iraq. From 2001-2003, Bush used Ari, the greatest White House Spokesman of all times, to convince the American public that the attack on Iraq was a necessity. Most people don't realize that Bush conducted very few press conferences during his first four years, he just gave speeches that did not allow follow up questions, and when he did, the questions were preselected so he could have Ari tell him what to say. This was vital to Bush's war and his chances for re-election. Just look at what happened to the administration when Ari left. Bush started holding his own press conferences and the rest of America started seeing how big an idiot they had elected. You can see Bush's popularity numbers begin to drop with the resignation of Fleischer.

Well now Bush and Cheney are in deep trouble over the water boarding torture tactics and we have seen "Cheney the Invisible" more in the last week than we did in eight years. Since George can't talk for himself, we have also seen the emergence of Arrogant Ari. Every time I know this guy is going to be on TV I have to watch him. He is the master of misdirection, never answering an incriminating question and diverting attention away from the issue at hand. As long as Ari was doing the talking, the Bush camp was solid and reporters were scared to ask Ari any questions that disagreed with the war policies. Any reporter that asked such a question would be ignored or banned from future press conferences. Ari controlled the media.

Think back to what happened to the man who followed him as press secretary, Scott McClellan. His conscience wouldn't allow him to continually lie, and he wasn't good at it, so he resigned and later wrote a book about the experience. This was the first time Ari had to appear to do damage control for Bush and try to discredit McClellan. It worked and now he has appeared again to deflect the attention away from the real criminals, Bush and Cheney, and onto the congress members that knew and went along with it, in particular, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. No matter who else knew about these tactics, their role cannot be bigger than the people who perpetrated this act. As one reporter put it, if you see someone committing a crime and do nothing, you are guilty of a crime as well, but you shouldn't receive a harsher penalty than the ones who committed or ordered the act.

Don't get me wrong, I have no love for any democrat who voted for this war. At the time the republican party had the same control as the democrats do now, majority in the congress and the senate, so it was easy for the democrats to be outvoted on every issue involving the war. In fact, the republicans called anyone who opposed the war unpatriotic. Well one of the brave few who opposed this senseless unnecessary war from the beginning is now the president. While all the other democrats tucked their tails between their legs to protect their balls, Barrack Obama was one of the few that stood up for what they truly believed and voted against the war. It doesn't matter what party you represent, any politician that backed this war should not be in office. More on that later, back to the subject at hand.

Just before Ari left the Bush administration, he was starting to enjoy a surge in popularity for the way he handled the press, and had been voted by one media outlet as the sexiest man in America. But shortly after that he was implicated in the Valery Plame incident and resigned from office in July of 2003. He even worked out an immunity deal in 2007 that allowed him to lie without repercussions. Just read the Wikipedia account below of Ari's role in this incident and you will will understand his power to manipulate any situation.

In January 2007, during the first week of Scooter Libby's trial, it was revealed in court proceedings that former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was granted immunity from prosecution by Patrick Fitzgerald in February of 2004. Fleischer reportedly acknowledged discussing Valerie Plame with reporters, but promised to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation only if granted immunity. Once the deal was struck, Fleischer told Fitzgerald that he had discussed Plame with David Gregory of NBC News and John Dickerson of Time in July 2003, days before leaving his job at the White House. Fleischer testified that he first learned about Plame and her CIA affiliation during a July 7, 2003, lunch with Libby. Fleischer also testified that four days later, while aboard Air Force One and during a five-day trip to several African nations, he overheard Dan Bartlett reference Plame. According to Fleischer, Bartlett stated to no one in particular "His wife sent him...She works at the CIA." Shortly after overhearing Bartlett, Fleischer proceeded to discuss Plame with Gregory and Dickerson. According to Fleischer, neither Gregory nor Dickerson showed much interest in the information. Dickerson has denied Fleischer's account. Gregory has declined to comment on the matter. With regards to the immunity deal, Fitzgerald told the court "I didn't want to give [Fleischer] immunity. I did so reluctantly." Libby's attorney, William Jeffress, sought to learn more about the deal, telling the court "I'm not sure we're getting the full story here." According to Matt Apuzzo of the Associated Press, "Prosecutors normally insist on an informal account of what a witness will say before agreeing to such a deal. It's known in legal circles as a proffer, and Fitzgerald said [in court] he never got one from Fleischer."

Swine Flu?

Ok now what's really going on? It's a week after the new swine flu outbreak has hit the world and we still don't know what the cause is. In fact, I'm watching CNN, John King to be exact, and he is saying the FIRST case of swine flu in an actual swine has just been reported. Get this, a pig has died after catching the swine flu virus from his Mexican owner. Are they serious?

Specter the Defector

What an amazing turn of events on this the 100th day of President Barack Obama's first term. In keeping his promise to try and reach across the "aisle" and work with republicans, he happened to pull back with him one of the most respected Senators in America. Senator Arlen Specter has been elected to the Senate as a republican for a Pennsylvania record of five terms. Today he announced he was defecting to the democratic party, giving Pres. Obama the majority he needs to pass any bill he submits if everybody votes along party lines.

But wait! Senator Specter has said his move is totally political and for self preservation. he said he realizes that the republican party is in trouble and he is worried that if he remains a republican he will not win re-election to his seat. He has also said that just because he is now a democrat doesn't mean he will always vote with them.

Okay, I have no problem with you switching parties, happens all the time when you disagree with the policies of your current party. I have no problem with a politician not voting with his party if he doesn't believe in that issue or policy. But to change parties just because you feel you won't get re-elected? I have a problem with that because basically you are an independent that is playing the field. If you flipflop your parties because of popularity rather than issues, you are not an honest person. You should just claim independence and vote with the issues you support rather than mislead the people who vote strictly along party lines. It will be interesting to see how the people of Pennsylvania react to this move. Will they continue to vote for Specter or will they vote for his democratic opponent? I'm sure he won't run unopposed.

Obama's First 100 Days

Today marks President Obama's first 100 days in office. I can never remember a president getting so much scrutiny in the past, maybe it has something to do with him being the first Black president. After all, all Black people go through this process when they are the first ones to hold a position of authority in their field of work. You can best compare this to the historical reaction to allowing Jackie Robinson into Major League Baseball. Jackie was chosen because Branch Rickey felt that among all off the Black players in the Negro Leagues, he not only had the talent, but would have the disposition to withstand all of the racial taunts that would come from fans, opponents, and even teammates.

Some have compared the scrutiny of Pres. Obama to house arrest with an ankle bracelet. Every move is followed, recorded, scrutinized, and reported by the media. CNN is dedicating a whole day to this "event" by asking the public to grade his performance so far. It will be interesting to see how they handle this. Will he just be graded on what he has done? Will he be graded compared to what all others have done? Do people still remember that he is cleaning up a mountain of Bushshit left behind by the last tenants of the White House? Well here is my opinion.

Pres. Obama is doing an excellent job. He set his agenda during the campaign, and unlike any president in the past, he has addressed every major issue he spoke on. Most presidents have tackled the main problems first and put other campaign promises on the back burner, never to be heard from again. George Bush for example. took office and immediately gave people money back and called it a tax rebate, had the people all giddy and thinking he was great, and proceeded with his campaign promise to keep the military busy. And that's all he did for the next eight years, promote his war as something good for America, that the American people wanted. Honestly, I have to thank you for that because I never thought I would see a Black president in my lifetime.

As I stated in an earlier article, President Obama has to run his administration like a corporation, by setting up divisions and appointing heads of those divisions. He has tried to do this, but some of the people he had in mind proved unworthy, and instead of just appointing anyone, he has kept the people that held those positions in charge until he can find his own replacements. Why replace someone who is doing an adequate job with someone you know nothing about? It's too early to see how effective his efforts have been on the economy, but it is definitely better than what the republicans had to offer. They are still trying to criticize without offering an alternative.

Their little tea party tax demonstration was a complete failure as no one cares about the rich crying about getting taxed more when 95% of the country will receive a tax break. Hell, how can they complain, have they seen the President's tax payment? He paid over $800,ooo in taxes, nearly a third of what he made from the sale of his books, leaving him with over $1.5 million to live off of for the year. The average American family of four can live comfortably off of $50,000 a year. That would provide them with $12,000 worth of housing, $8,000 for two cars, and leave them with $30,000 to take care of food, clothing, schooling, and medical care. These are your essential everyday needs to survive in America.

He also has kept his promise to try to reach across the "aisle" to the republicans, and Republican Senator Arlen Specter has decided that if you can't beat them with our old, outdated, policies, it's best to join them. You see, Specter has been elected to the senate for five terms as a republican, a record for any Pennsylvania senator, but today decided to defect to the democrats, a move that has the good old boys of the republican party quite upset.

So in summation, Pres. Obama has done the a pretty good job of getting tthings back in order. The republicans didn't have a clue as to what to do with the failing economy other than to try to critixize this president for taking action. They can tell you it won't work with out giving a solution. Of course they don't have a solution because they don't know how they screwed it up. As any business person knows, in order for your business to survive, it is best to have some sort of written business plan to use as a road map. If you are traveling into territory that you are unfamiliar with, a map is your best guide in case you get off course. The only way you can ever be successful is to be able to rectify mistakes and strengthen weaknesses.

It is too early to judge the overall progress that he has made because he barely has had time to get policies and personnel in place. The best way to judge him is by where we were at this time last year. Consider the fact that gas was already over three dollars a gallon and they were promising us it would be at least five dollars by summer, a promise the Bush administration kept. Look at how far and fast it went down when Obama was elected, and you know that the past administration was fleecing the American public. Do you really think we would have been better off with McCain and Palin? Do you remember their solution to rising gas prices? I think it was something like "Drill Baby, Drill."

Swine Flu and Illegal Immigrants

On this his 100th day in office, President Obama now faces another tough task. With the spread of swine flu being attributed to visits to and citizens of Mexico, what do you do about illegal aliens? Are we going to see a repeat of the Cuban boat lift where they sent some of their most violent prisoners to America on boats? Will there be a mass exodus into the United States? What will the President do to stop the flow of illegals, now possibly carrying the disease? I suspect there will be increased bloodshed as Americans try to keep them from coming across the border. If you are already restricting legal travel into the country, what do you think they will do to illegal traffic, especially with the drug problem down there on the border also?

Barack Obama Terrible on American TV Culture

OK Mr. President, It's time for you to quit using television show analogies to get your point across. I cringed when you used Sanford and Son to describe how people felt about possibly losing their Social Security benefits, and I'm surprised the Black Media gave you a pass on this. Fred Sanford was coming to join Elizabeth, not George Jefferson's wife "Weezy". This was totally unacceptable to me and quite embarrassing, but we let it slide. But your recent comments about cleaning up the situation on the Mexican border like Eliot Ness of "The Untouchables" wiped out organized crime was quite humorous, although I can understand your reference.

You see Mr. President, Eliot Ness was a real person that was used to bring down the organization of Al Capone. But even though he caused a great deal of grief for Capone, it was the tax evasion charge that put him in jail, and the mob, like any great organization, just plugged in a new leader and continued to operate and is still a major force in this country today. So please Mr. President, quit making these statements that make TV enthusiasts like myself and fans of yours shudder with pain. To use an old term, you're losing "cool points."

Credit Card Boycott

It has become quite obvious that the credit industry doesn't give a damn about it's customers. I recently posted a blog about them cutting credit limits on people with perfect credit, now they are increasing interest rates to ridiculous numbers. This is all a plot to undermine President Obama's administration in it's attempt to right the economy. As I stated in an earlier blog, Pres. Obama has to take the blame for the AIG bailout bonuses that were paid according to AIG's contractual agreement with it's employees. To his credit he did, and he acted swiftly to rectify the situation and said it will never happen again. More and more people are falling in line to my idea of giving the people bailout money to pay off their creditors rather than giving it to big business so they can continue to rip the American people off, and if you don't think it's my idea, just go back through my blog history to read my post on Dec. 2,2008. I told you this would happen.

The only way to fight these companies is to put them out of business. They are trying to make you go bankrupt by using these tactics when they are the ones who should have gone bankrupt for the tactics they were using prior to the bailout. It is time we showed these companies that we deserve to be treated better. It is time for a nationwide boycott against the credit industry. It not only will make these companies wake up, but it will let our government know that we will not accept them helping these companies abuse the American people. The retail industry is already feeling the effect of people not having money to spend and prices are starting to fall to reasonable numbers. The gas companies felt the crunch of raising prices up to over $4 a gallon under Bush's orders, people quit driving and prices fell, although that could also be attributed to the republicans getting run out of office. So now it is the credit and banking industries turn

Imagine the panic that would ensue if Americans didn't pay any credit card bills for two months straight. Imagine the panic if the threat were to continue until these companies and banks change their attitude toward the consumer. When you signed that credit agreement you said you would agree to pay them back at a certain rate, and if you didn't keep up your part of the agreement, they could raise your interest rates. What you probably didn't realize is that they have the right to change these terms as they feel fit, even if you are a good paying customer and held up your end of the bargain. Well we've held up our end of the bargain and you are trying to screw us. I think it's time we change the terms on you.

I am sick off having to pay over limit fees when I don't go over my limit, just because you add interest. If I didn't go over the limit you gave me, I shouldn't have to pay over limit fees because your interest rate puts me over as long as I bring my limit down before the next billing period. Modern technology is making it so we will have to pay all bills online in the future because if you call in to make a payment you get charged between $10-20 processing fee. If you go to a place that you can pay your bill like Ace Check Cashing, they charge you a minimum of $10 to process your payment. So not only are they raising your rates, they are making it harder and costlier to pay your bills on time. Did you know some banks charge you for going in and dealing with a teller?

Consider the fact that these institutions rarely lose money on any loan because they charge so much interest that by the time you actually default, you have usually paid off more than what you borrowed in the first place. That's why they can sell your account to collection agencies who are willing to settle your account for much less than you owe. So boycotting and not paying your bill can actually lead to you paying less than they are asking for. I'm sure most of you don't feel as I do, but I've got nothing to lose. I can't get any more credit from companies that I have paid faithfully to for years, never missing a payment or being late, even when I brought my balance to zero and had a credit score over 750. So if I can't get credit with those numbers, I may as well max out all of my cards and file bankruptcy. What's the difference? I wipe out all my debt and get a fresh credit start. Think about it.

Tea Parties

Give me a break. We've got the richest 5% of the nation crying about having to pay more taxes, like the other 95% of the population is supposed to care. We finally got a president that is going to make you greedy rich bastards pay your fair share of taxes. Do you really think I care that you have to pay more in taxes than I can make in a lifetime? Are you really trying to provoke us poor people into going Robin Hood on all your asses. It is obvious you rich bastards can't do math. 95% is greater than 5%. Maybe you can understand that. Pres. Obama told the American people this was going to happen, that's why he got elected. Once again, let's do some math, Obama 53% to McCain 46%. The real American people have spoken and we ain't listening to you crybabies. You need to be in front of G.W. Bush's home because he is the one who put you in this position.

Bailout Tactics

As I stated in my Bailout Plan, once the government gave money to these companies to bail them out, they would continue to abuse the American public with unscrupulous tactics when giving credit. I just read an article that talks about how the credit card companies are cutting people's credit limit in half without notifying them. They are cutting limits close to and below their outstanding balances causing people who have good credit to have to pay overlimit fees, and the government says this is legal!!! Combine that with the disclosure today that AIG got $170 billion in Bailout money and is paying $165 million in bonuses to employees. Again, the government says that there is nothing they can do about it because the company has a contract with it's employees to pay out these bonuses.

This comes from being in a rush to solve a problem that' can't be rushed. Would the government have given AIG this money if they had known about this contract? I don't think so. We know Pres. Obama has a devastating task ahead of him and he is anxious to get things moving in the right direction, but he is learning that his lack of experience in the Senate is a slight setback. He is learning that a lot of the people he thought he could trust to put in various positions of authority weren't as honest as he thought they were, most of them having problems paying taxes.

Pres. Obama made a lot of promises in his first State of the Union Address, but all presidents do. In order to make these promises come true he needs good help. He has to run his administration like a corporation, in the sense that he has to first create a business plan. This he has done by outlining his vision with distinct tasks and time limits. Next he has to put people that he can trust to get things done in charge of each division. Together they create a plan on what needs to be done and the necessary staffing. This is where Obama has hit snags because he has worked with most of these people in the past and thought of them as trustworthy, much like some of the people that were named to try to undermine him during his campaign, such as William Ayers.

This proves that Pres. Obama truly is naive when it comes to American politics. By not being a Washington Insider, he only looked at people from what he accomplished or tried to accomplish while working with these people on various committees or certain issues and felt they needed to be in a position to lead under him. It's been like adding Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez to your team. You know these guys can help you win a championship, but they have violated your policy of honesty. By the way, has anyone noticed how many Texas Rangers were using steroids while Bush owned the team? Don't remember them ever winning anything though. Another article on steroids later. You should also read about how Bush cheated the people of Arlington by having them pay for his stadium.

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/bush-sec5.html

So now Pres. Obama has to choose replacements for people he thought he could trust with people he may not know as well, but will have to trust. That's the purpose of the business plan, knowing what has to be fixed in order to get things running smoothly again, or at least running. It will also let him know what adjustments need to be made within each department. I'm willing to bet that some people are turning down appointments to avoid being investigated. For example, it was pointed out on "Meet the Press" this morning that the Treasury Department has no staff members appointed under the Secretary of the Treasury. That's not good with the economy in the shape it's in.

So hopefully Pres. Obama has learned that he has to slow down and be the analytical man that he is. He can't let the Republicans and the media rush him into bad judgments trying to fix this mess. They knew this before the election so there is no need to panic less than two months into his administration. Besides, who is going to be stupid enough to listen to them anyway since they are the ones who created this mess.

But the two topics that I mentioned at the top of this article are a direct result of rushing to a fix. There is still no better plan than my Bailout Plan in the previous article. No one deserves the money more than the American people because of the way these banks, credit card, and mortgage companies have treated us and continue to treat us since some of them have received money from the government. Just look at two of the examples from the article. One man had his unlimited American Express limit reduced to $5000 when he owed $10,000. If you don't know, you have to pay your entire balance on American Express each month. Why would you attack a customer like this? The other example had a limit reduced from $9000 to $300 when the cardholder only owed $360, thus putting him over the credit limit and he had to pay a penalty. How in the hell can this be legal? Here is another article where you can read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/15/AR2008111500216.html

By reducing your credit limit, it reduces your available credit, and reduces your credit ratio, which in turn reduces your credit score. So now some people with excellent credit scores will be lowered into the good bracket, thus costing them more in interest rates IF they can get more credit. This is the thanks the American taxpayers get for bailing out these companies, much as I predicted in my previous article. Then you have AIG. Not only are they paying bonuses to employees, they are going mostly to the division of the company that caused them to fail in the first place. All of this comes from not investigating these companies before giving them money. They should have been investigated and audited to find out why they went under, not just take their word for it. Hell, before they give you money they want to know your life history, so they should be subjected to even more scrutiny since their business failed.

So Pres. Obama, you face your first major setback as an administrator because you rushed to solve a problem that needs precise detail and judgement. I'm not saying your plan won't work, it has to be given time. But I guarantee my plan will show improvement much faster if implemented properly. Maybe even a combination of the two plans. As you are finding out, a lot of the people you trusted can't be trusted. They are only going to continue to come up with weak solutions that will benefit their ties to their corporate backers while the American people continue to suffer.

The credit card industry has been compared to loan sharks with their ability to increase interest rates above the 20 % level and to change terms at their leisure to further reduce your credit worthiness. At the same time, I can remember when banks gave you as much as 8% interest on savings and 6% on checking accounts. Now you get zero on checking and less than one percent on your savings. Remember, banks use your money to operate and this is how they repay you. Actually, you are loaning the banks money. It's like giving money to your brother to hold and he invests it behind your back, makes millions and doesn't give you any of the profits. He just gives you back what you ask for. In conclusion, I can't see how any plan to rescue the loan sharks is going to help the sheep that have been fleeced.