In 1987, an "artist" created a piece of artwork entitled, "PIss Christ".  Essentially, he took a crucifix, put it in a jar, and urninated in the container.  He then took a photograph of the image. 

The National Endowment for the Arts (a taxpayer funded entity), helped provide a $15,000 grant for the artist's work.  Christians expressed outrage over the depiction and the use of tax dollars.   But, we were told this was simply artistic expression and freedom of speech.  We were not "enlightened" enough to understand the value of such creativity. 

Now comes, Pastor Terry Jones of Florida.  He is planning a "burn the Quran day" in observance of the 9th anniversary of 9-11. 
Many of the same people that lectured us on our narrow views in 1987, are now imploring Pastor Jones not go through with his plan. 

I'd appreciate them explaining the difference to me. 

Joe, the traveler, arrived at the car rental counter anxious to continue his journey.

"We offer a rental price that is 1/10th of our competitors." Said the smiling agent."

"That's what so stunning." responded Joe.  "What's the catch?" 

"Oh, there's no catch.  We simply offer our cars at $3/day."  

Joe reached for the contract.  Just as he got ready to sign the agreement, the door to the rental agency opened noisily.  Two brutish men escorted a business-suit clad individual into the office.  The rumpled man was pleading, "But you said it was only $3 a day, and now you want me to pay $14,000 for the rental?  I don't understand."  

The larger thug spoke, "The company policy changed while you were driving.  It's still $3/day.  But we decided to charge a penalty of $3,000 of the use of the air conditioner.  It's bad for the environment, you know."

"But that makes no sense!" pleaded the man.  

"You also hauled extra guests in your car, when you all could have taken public transportation.  You wasted gas."  

"It's not fair.  You didn't tell me!"  yelled the man, who was still attached to the two thugs.

"It's in the fine print that you signed.  Company policy changed.  And now you owe us."  

Joe turned back to the rental agent, his hand was still quivering from the display he had just witnessed.  The agent was still smiling, but her face now had the look of pure evil.  "I think I'll just grab a cab"  he said quietly as he turned from the counter.

This week, President Obama proposed a new set of business tax incentives that would provide more than $200 billion, in tax relief, for firms building or acquiring new equipment.  He's trying to jump start the ailing economy 

However, I'm reminded of the "incentive" that Obama offered to ailing banks back in 2009.  He created the Troubled Asset Relief Program that "invested" into those banks.  The government was provided preferred stock in return.   However, shortly after the banks had received the money, the Obama administration started to change the rules.  In fact, they decided to implement new laws on compensation for any bank that had taken the TARP money.  A whole slew of other "changes" were also imposed on anyone who had taken the investment.  

Over the weekend, I was visiting with a manufacturer who employs more than 200 people in his thriving firm.  He told me that he was recently considering a $5.5 million upgrade to his plant's equipment.  The new technology would allow him to be more competitive, create new jobs and grow the business.  The executive team met.  The group was unanimous that the $5.5 million expansion made great sense for the company.  

And then they scuttled the project.  Why?

In the same meeting, where the executive team applauded the strategic aspects of the project, they also discussed the current political climate of the United States and Illinois.  And they blinked.  

Obamacare, new taxes, unknown environmental regulations all combined to scuttle the expansion.  The team was too skittish over what Obama and Quinn might be conjuring up for the future, and so a dozen more new jobs have been lost.  

Like the smiling car rental agent, Obama offered enticing terms to the banks early in his administration.  A few short months later, the smirking Obama told those same banks that "I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks."   

Businesses won't expand, when future risks are too great.  Obama and Quinn appear too erratic for business.  Until some level of reassurance is brought to the business community, business owners are going to walk away from the counter of "opportunity".   

Mark Kirk  - This senate race may be the most critical in the country. Why? 

The seat was originally held by President Obama.  Upon Obama's election to the presidency, Governor Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris (just named the most "clueless Senator ") to fill out the term.  But the term ends upon the next election (2010).  As such, whoever wins the seat (Alexi or Mark Kirk) can be seated the day after the election, rather than waiting to be sworn in in early January.

Again, why does this matter?  Word in DC is that the Democrats are anticipating the loss of the US House in the coming election.  And that during the traditional "lame duck" session (that period between the election and the January seating of the newly elected representatives), Obama and company plan to ram through a slew of horrible bills (including card-check and Cap & Trade).

The thought is that the ousted senators and representatives, who lost a reelection effort, won't mind voting for some of these objectionable bills, knowing there are no consequences.  Enter Mark Kirk. His election (and immediate seating) will provide an immediate barrier to the lame duck plan.  One more vote in the US Senate, for the republicans, makes Harry Reid's task that much more difficult. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

New book coming out. 

Obama's former car czar, Stephen Ratner, is coming out with a new book that describes the "pure politics" that went into the government takeover of GM and Chrysler.  The initial reports are pretty chilling.  

Remember, Obama and team rewrote bankruptcy law so that GM bondholders were moved to the back of the line, despite their secured legal position.  Instead, Team Obama moved the UAW to the front of the line, and upended centuries of bankruptcy law.  

Ironically, many banks in the US held those GM bonds.  When the bonds became worthless (due to Obama's heavy hand), many of the banks (holding GM bonds) were closed by the FDIC and the bank's stock became worthless. 

Obama's actions, as evidenced by the excerpts from the book, are not the work of someone trying to build a country, but rather someone wanting to tear down business. 

Only 63 days remain until the November election.  I'm starting to see signs that give me hope. 

Here was the view out my car window as I drove back from lunch today........



And, last Friday, a remarkable thing occurred.  First, some background.  

    In early August, the EPA was presented with a proposal by several environmental organizations that recommended an EPA ban on all lead bullets in the United States.  (Lead Bullets make up approximately 98% of all bullets sold here.)  The proposed ban was a "slight of hand" move to remove guns (or at least the bullets) from law abiding citizens.  

    The logic presented to the EPA was that the lead pellets, when falling in the woods, are a potential poison for any animal dumb enough to eat it.  

    Remember, the EPA had this proposal under consideration for approximately three weeks.  

    Then late Friday morning, The Drudge Report, cited a newspaper article which reported that the EPA was giving consideration to to the ammunition ban.  The reaction was almost instantaneous!  The internet was filled with indignation that the EPA would even consider using their powers to circumvent the constitution.  By mid-afternoon on Friday, the NRA was in full blown uproar.

    Less than six hours after the story broke, the EPA surrendered.  They issued a statement stating that they didn't have the authority to regulate ammunition and as such, they wouldn't consider making any type of prohibition.  Of course, they conveniently forgot to mention that the request was actually under consideration for the previous three weeks.  Fortunately, they were able to "finalize" that decision in less than six hours (once attention was brought to bear).

    Voters are angry on a variety of fronts.  Given the Obama administration's instantaneous response to issues like Shirley Sherrod and the EPA bullet ban, it seems clear that they are very afraid of upsetting the electorate (any further) before election day. 

(thanks to the local source who verified this for me).

The Ohio businessman, now in his 80's, built an incredible manufacturing concern over his lifetime.  Through hard work, the elderly gentleman, has amassed a net worth that exceeds $50 million dollars.

When he was in his 70's, he decided to pay attention to his health.  He bought a treadmill, and cut down his daily intake of manhattans from two to one.  His goal was to make it to 2010 - when the tax imposed by the federal government would drop to 0.

On January 1, 2011, without Congressional action, the estate tax will jump to 55% on estates over $1 million.  New Year's Day 2011, for this businessman, will not be a happy event.  After January 1, 2011, his potential estate tax (taken from his heirs) will be more than $25 million, half of his life's work.  

The gentlemen has pledged that the federal confiscation will never occur.  Early in 2010, he toted the treadmill out to the road for the trashman to haul away.  He's also enjoying three manhattans a day. 

He doesn't intend to see 2011.  Whether through natural causes, or a self-induced departure, this American, who has spent a lifetime creating jobs and opportunity, refuses to let the politicians squander his hard earned money.  

The story is incredible to consider.  With 126 days until the end of the year, will we see this happen across the nation? 

(As an aside, do you know how long it will take the Obama administration to spend that $25 million estate confiscation?  Less than 4 seconds....)

He is the grandson of a Missouri Congressman.  His father served as Missouri State Treasurer, Governor, and was elected to the US Senate.  His mother served as a US Senator.  His sister is the current Missouri Secretary of State and the Democratic nominee for the US Senate.  His family's political history is unmatched in the state. 

And he, Russ Carnahan, ran for and won the US Congressional seat previously held by Dick Gephardt - a seat that is the strongest of Democratic strongholds. 

But Russ is in trouble.  

        Interested in seeing his leadership skills?  Watch this video of him being asked about his position on the Mosque at Ground Zero.

    In the last few days, his campaign headquarters was firebombed!  Yes, that's right.  Firebombed in St. Louis!  A St.. Louis newspaper speculated that it was the work of the Tea Party movement.  And Congressman Carnahan expressed his desire that, when found, the bomber should be fully prosecuted.

    Well, the bomber has been identified.   It is..........(drum roll please)..........a former Carnahan campaign staffer!!  The staffer had been with Carnahan for quite awhile.   As for motive, it ranges from the staffer trying to besmirch the Tea Party movement, to the staffer being upset with Carnahan for having stiffed him on salary that is due him (the bomber).  (No word on whether Carnahan still favors prosecution)  Maybe the bombed office would be an excellent site to build a "study center" for all the leftist ideas that the bomber espouses?  Although, (via the video) Carnahan has trouble with those types of choices.  But I digress......

Neither explanation of the firebombing (besmirching the Tea Party Movement or shorting the pay for a staffer) looks too appetizing to a politician with a golden family history and a (previously) safe Democratic seat.  

Early in his new administration, President Obama, meeting with a group of bankers, callously stated , "I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks."    That one statement clearly showed the disdain that this president has for job-creating businesses in America.   He's now suffering from that misunderstanding of America's economic engine. 

For someone like Obama, all jobs are created equal.  He mistakenly believes that the creation of a government job is the same as one in the private sector. 

Burdening business with increasing taxes, health care costs, continuing governmental regulation and oversight has finally wrought an Obama economy, one in which business is so unsure of the future that they are reigning in any ideas of expansion or job creation.


    Some examples from the past 24 hours: 

            INTEL CEO offered a depressing set of observations about the economy and the Obama administration Monday evening
    
          John Stossel correctly points out that the uncertainty of new government regulation is necessarily hurting job creation.  He's absolutely correct. 


Recently I visited with the owner of a 60 year old firm that employs more than 250 employees (off of a high of 350).  It's a mainstay of employment for the community where it's headquartered. 

The owner of the manufacturing firm gave me some insight on the short term future of employment for his firm and the nation.  No matter what the outcome of the November elections, Obama needs to take note.

The firm is actually having a decent year.  Sales are less than before.  But cutbacks made in 2009 have helped the bottom line.  "Cuts" is easier to say then "layoffs".  Remaining employees, grateful for employment are expected to be more efficient.  And they are.  Without the cuts, its doubtful the company could have survived.  

It's a scenario that's playing out across public and private companies in the US.  Many public firms are reporting excellent profits.  But those profits are driven by the same type of cost reductions.  An improving bottom line is not sustainable, as you can't continue to wring out expenses every year.

The business owner won't be doing any new hiring because of the increased burden of having employees and the unknown threats emanating from Washington.   And he has no intention of bringing back the jobs that were eliminated. 

On a separate note - a young entrepreneur (who has started several on line companies) recently commented that he has two goals in life - First, he wants to start and run lots of companies AND Second, he never wants to have any employees! 

The number of jobs created by a firm used to be a point of pride for business owners.  Having a large number of employees was a mark of success. 

That was then.  Sadly, today, being a large employer still means you are a mark.............for pitchforks. 

Anchor Babies - These are the children, born in the United States to illegal immigrant  parents.  The newborns are given automatic citizenship in the United States.  The topic has gotten lots of debate recently, as it's been determined that as many as 1 in 6 children born in California are Anchor babies.   More to the point, the VAST majority of these babies are born in hospitals, for which their parents never pay a dime.  It's a HUGE draw for Mexicans to come to the US for their babies birth - simply because of this law. 

I'm even aware of individuals, here in the midwest, and not of hispanic heritage, that host pregnant relatives in the US just a few weeks before an anticipated birth.

Meg Whitman, gubernatorial candidate for California has an interesting idea.  She's proposing to change the law to allow anchor babies be given US citizenship, but ONLY AFTER they receive a high school diploma.  It's a great idea and promotes an educated citizenry.  
----------------------------------------------------------------


James Cameron, the creator of AVATAR, believes firmly in the theories (still unproven) of Climate Change.  And he was tired of all the naysayers that questioned the theory, so much so that he laid down the challenge to debate the opposition.  In fact, he said he relished the opportunity to: "call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads."

Cameron approached three high profile skeptics (Ann McElhinney, Andrew Breitbart, and Marc Morano) to see if they would agree to a debate with Mr. Cameron and two other scientists.  In fact the debate, per Mr. Cameron, was to be held at the Aerday Environmental Conference in Aspen Colorado - this week.  It was hoped that the event would be broadcast on the internet and TV. 

Ms. McElhinney (one of the participants) reports what happened next: 

Everyone on our side agreed with their conditions. The debate was even listed on the AREDAY agenda.

But then as the debate approached James Cameron's side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate—to "a roundtable". We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed

Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he "wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out," decided to ban the media from the shoot out.

He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.

No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet.  No one would be allowed to record it in any way.

We all agreed to that.

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. "shoot it out " Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was canceled.


WHAT HAPPENED?  We'll likely never know.  But it raises serious concerns when environmental leaders like Al Gore and James Cameron want to talk at us about climate change, but never want to engage in a debate.  Their silence is deafening.   
 

Imagine you lent your car (in great mechanical shape) to a friend.  After a week, the car was returned, but the friend complained, "Listen, you need to fix this vehicle.  The tires have been completely worn away.  The brakes are toast, and engine is in need of serious overhaul due to over-revving." 

Just as you start to ask why the car is in such bad shape, the friend says, "It makes no sense to look at past history.  We simply need to repair it......NOW." 

You'd likely not let the friend operate the vehicle again - and you'd be wise to do so.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the government run entities that were used to "give" home ownership to Americans - a worthy endeavor.  But these economic engines were driven at top speeds (giving interest only loans, not checking credit ratings etc.) and ultimately caused the economic collapse of the housing market in so many sectors.  We taxpayers will foot the bill. 

George Bush warned against the instability that Fannie and Freddy's growth was causing, but was roundly criticized by the media and Democrats. 

President Obama is NOW going to reform Fannie and Freddie.  Of course, the Democrats have conveniently skipped over the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as the purchaser of more than 90% of all US mortgages, is a root cause of our current financial crisis.  They also want to gloss over the fact that Fannie and Freddie (as taxpayer subsidized entities) contributed heavily to Democratic candidates.  And let's not forget that Congressman Barney Frank was overseeing the agencies, while dating one of the top executives.  

The basic problem for Fannie and Freddie is that the concept did away with the major principal of banking - keeping a connection between borrower and lender.  When banks were creating mortgages to sell to Fannie and Freddie, the banks had no incentive to make sure the borrowers were "credit worth".  By not holding the loan, the issuing bank wasn't driven to make sure the home appraisal was legitimate.  After all, they could simply sell it to Fannie and Freddie, collect the fee and move onto the next prospective borrower.

So what's the solution?  I don't think this will take the standard 2,000 page legislation out of Congress.  In fact, I'd suggest a solution can be drafted in less than one full page.  Here it is:

   Obama should require that future Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac activity only purchase 90% of a mortgage.  The issuing bank MUST keep 10% of the loan.  Overnight, this change would reengage the lender in the lending process.  Banks would again care about credit worthiness and appraisal values.  It would prevent the fraud and abuse that has cost we taxpayers so dearly.  And it would restore integrity to the process and reform Freddie and Fannie.

    It's easy to implement and easy to understand.  Sadly, those are two aspects of the legislative process that our President and our Democratic leaders seem to abhor. 

    Just like the neighbors abuse of the car, it seems these "drivers" shouldn't be allowed back behind the wheel. 

Democrats are not having a good week. 

Rod Blagojevich's conviction on only one count (and a hung jury on the rest) is a horrible scenario for Democrats.  Just this morning, Governor Rod was on the Today show blabbing about how wronged he was.  If the jury couldn't decide (because of one questionable holdout), the prospects for the voters to deliver a message in November seems even more likely.

Rod B is an addict.  He's addicted to power and attention.  Using the addiction analogy, his impeachment was the "intervention".  Sadly, Pat Quinn, for six years, was one of Rod's "enablers".  It shows the contempt that Quinn holds for Illinois voters for him to now claim that he's going to "clean up" the system - the same one he enabled.

Meanwhile, Illinois goes merrily along paying for Rod B's All Kids program, and the myriad of other "pipe dreams" he created.  Now that it's been revealed that Rod wasn't responsible enough to manage his own clothing budget, shouldn't we examine the financial logic of the statewide programs he created?  

Beyond Illinois, the mosque issue will not go away for the Democrats.  Nancy Pelosi is the latest to walk into the issue, and in the process, revealed the heart of Democratic ideals.  Pelosi, first called for an investigation of those who oppose the mosque.  Then when she was reminded by her staff of that bothersome "freedom of speech" right, Pelosi "walked back her comments ", by declaring that she meant both sides (those that support and oppose the mosque) should be "investigated".  

And therein lies the problem.  Politicians like Pelosi believe the government MUST grow in size and scope and control.  Usually, they are adept enough at keeping these feelings hidden, but legislating with their clear intent of government control.  

Blagojevich is not going away. The mosque issue doesn't appear to be simmering down.  And there are only 72 days to the election.