Is Obama stupid, or is he brilliant???

Something that has been bothering me lately, and many Americans for that matter, is why Obama would take the economic path he has chosen for America, when doing what he is doing has been proven over and over again not to work.

You have Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush all entering the office of the President, all of then lowered taxes, cut back on federal regulation, and watched as their respective economies skyrocket ted.

All presidents who did the opposite watched over lumbering, staggering or falling economies. Warren G. Harding's progressive policies created a progressive tax system that ultimately lead to a 73% tax margin, and the economy sputtered. Harding and Coolidge saved the day, and the result was the roaring 20s.

John F. Kennedy came into office in 1960 and received a sputtering economy, and he cut taxes. The result was profits to the government nearly doubled. The same thing happened to Coolidge, Reagan, Kennedy and Bush.

In fact, during all these recoveries the middle class got closer and closer to the upper class and the rich. Those under poverty made more and more money. Jobs grew at record levels.

So, given all this success, all this evidence, why then would Barack Obama intentionally do the opposite? Think for a minute. Why would this be?

The answer is idealism. Obama and those who follow him, like Oprah Winfrey, are progressivists who have an ideal view of the world. They think that sacrifices made today will result in a perfect world in the future. And, therefore, he has taken up this opportunity, while the cards are down, to convince people that taxing, spending, and bailing out banks will save the economy. Yet, that is not his goal at all. While he tells us what he thinks we want to hear, his intention is altogether separate from anything Americans would ever want.

You see, Obama is a progressive. His goal is to create an ideal world. He believes that all this prosperity created by traditional American values, by a booming economy, is the antithesis to his goal of perfection.

One thing that progressives do not know, cannot conceive of, is that perfection is not possible. There never will be world peace because there will always be evil people. There never will be a world where there are no poor because some people don't have the values it takes to succeed. That's just the way it is. I'm not being insensitive, that's just a fact.

Yet, conservatism, the antithesis of liberal progressive policies, create a world that is as close to that ideal world that progressives yearn for. Yet they hate that some people make more than others. That's not fair. In there world, so long as there is any degree of inequality, there will never be an ideal world -- euphoria.

And, therefore, they intend to ignore the principles of this nation, tax, spend, redistribute wealth, create more unemployment benefits we cannot afford. regulate businesses, create cap and trade policies, and these sorts of programs at the expense of real progress, and with the goal of euphoria.

So, while thinkers like you and me might be thinking: is Obama stupid. The truth is, he has a goal, a purpose, for going against what has worked in the past. Because, what we think works, he sees -- they see -- as going in the wrong direction.

Obama's goal is to create a New World Order where there is no crime, where there is no global warming, where all animals live in peace with man, and where there are no values to hold people back from doing things they want.

No. Obama is not stupid if you know what his true intentions are. He is brilliant.

Robin Hood has failed for 500 plus years

So, a plummer says to Obama, "You're not going to raise my taxes, are you? I'm trying to run a business here?" Paraphrasing.

And Obama said, "I think when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

This plummer was on Neil Cavuto over on the Fox News Network. Neil asked, " Joe, did Obama win you over?"

The plummer said, "No, the answer actually scared me even more."

Cavuto said, "How so?"

The plummer said, "He said he wants to distribute wealth, and I mean that's kind of a socialist viewpoint. It's not the government to decide that I make a little too much and so I need to share it with other people. That's not the American dream."

He's a very smart plummer, that's what he is. He's been really reading up on his economics. I don't think Obama expected that. Here's a blue collar plummer, supposed to be a democrat, and he backs Obama against a wall.

This guy is upset that Obama thinks it is up to the government to decide that a "plummer" or any other American worker makes to much money and has to "share" the excess money with those poorer than he.

This is called Robin Hood, redistribution of wealth. It's socialism.

Obama says the most money a person can make before he will be taxed is $250,000. That's his cap. Once you make $250,000, you make enough money that you will be forced under an Obama administration to "share" your money with the poor.

It doesn't matter than you will not be able to get any richer. It does not matter that you may be forced to cut jobs because you need to pay those taxes, because most people won't be able to see those jobs because they aren't there.

Sure there will be unemployed people, but the more unemployed people there are the better off democrats and liberals are, because that means more victims. The more victims, the easier it is to sell our government programs that we want to initiate under the Obama administration.

So remember, if you make more than $250,000, you are going to have a tough time saving or making any extra, because Obama will take it from you.

And, case in point, there will be less of an incentive for people to go out and try to make that kind of money, because what will be the point -- Uncle Sam will just take it.

So who suffers. The people who will suffer the most are the poor because they will be out of a job AND out the money that Obama promised because it's not there. It's not there because redistribution plans do not work.

Think of it this way. The story of Robin hood is how old? It started in medieval times; about the 15th century. So that means the story of Robin Hood is about 500 years old.

People have been taking from the rich and giving to the poor for 500 years. So if Robin Hood politics was going to work, don't you think it would have worked, say, 500 years ago.

No. The truth is, Robin Hood politics (socialism) has been tried over and over and over again for 500 years. It's been tried ad nauseum. And today's liberal party continues to want to try it. It has NEVER worked.

Isn't it about time we gave up on Robin Hood politics? Why the hell do we keep trying it? Why don't we do something that takes some brains to think up, like supply side economics; like Reaganomics; like conservatism?

I'm so sick and tired of people wanting to try these feel good economic plans that never work. Yet, here we go again with Obama's Robin Hood plan. It's Robin Hood round 500,681. Why do we give Robin Hood so many mulligans?

I suppose we'll have to wait until it fails again for people to again see the light. And then conservatism will again come to save the day. And then people will forget again so Robin Hood politics can show his ugly head again.

That's life. It reminds me of ECCLESIASTES from the bible. He was the one who said that we humans never learn. "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh." And yet the new generation forgets all that the previous generation learned.

" What lies beyond the grave is outside the scope of human knowledge. When he is dead, man shall never return to see into whose hands his estate falls." He will never know that we are repeating his same errors.

Yet he is not here to set us free of our mistakes. The same mistakes our fathers already learned, tried to share with us, yet we forgoteth so we are doomed to repeateth.

Media fails to educate on financial crisis

This is the year journalism died. All over the media is spending all day talking about the head of Iran, and refusing to tell Americans the truth about the fallout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It started way back during the Carter administration. Jimmy Carter wanted to make it easier for poor people to get loans so they could afford to own a house, so he created regulations to make it so. Most banks didn't take this too seriously.

It wasn't until the Clinton administration that the Fed decided to pressure banks to give out these loans. "If you don't give loans to people who can't afford it, we are going to make your life a living hell."

So then all these people were put into homes that they knew they couldn't afford. And the result was the cost of houses skyrocketed, and thus the housing bubble.

Finally the day came when the bills were do, and all these people who shouldn't have been given loans in the first place were forced to give back their homes through foreclosure. And the housing bubble burst.

And then came the day that the banks collapsed because of of all the fraudulent loans, i.e. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The Fed -- the very people who caused this crisis -- now thinks it can solve this crisis with more government and more regulations. It seems odd to me that the fed wants to solve a problem of too much regulation with even more regulations. It's like putting oil on a fire.

Instead of taking a problem that was caused by a socialistic problem and trying to solve it by Socializing the Financial system, why not take the opposite approach and allow the market to solve itself?

I say why not, because it was government intervention that ultimately turned the panic of 1929 into the great depression. As I reported before, all the recessions and depressions prior to the Great Depression were short lived. The reason was because prior to 1929, Washington believed it was best to allow the market to fix itself, and it always did fix itself.

Yet, because Washington does not learn from history, it is doomed to repeat it. So now we have the very same people who caused this problem trying to solve it.

Not only has the media NOT told you what I just wrote here, but they have not told you who is really at fault here. It is not George W. Bush, it is liberals. It's Chris Dodd. It's Barny Frank. It's Bill Clinton. It's Jimmy Carter.

Early on in the Bush Administration, it was in 2003 I believe, the White House Warned that a crisis was coming if Congress didn't' to something. Yet liberals in Congress balked.

Barny Frank said, in 2003 following the Bush warning, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis. The more people in my judgment exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see, I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios."

But the media does not tell us this now. There is no analysis of the news in the media. They no longer do their job.

And that's why if we do not do our own investigating we will not learn the truth, particularly about the present financial crisis.

And that, my friends, is the thought of the day.