Van Jones, an American Cry Baby

Van Jones is a typical liberal. First, his behavior is more ghetto than professional, and then when he gets called on the carpet to answer for his juvenile demeanor, he attacks those who objected to his antics.

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

Smear campaign? Lies and distortions? What did I miss here? All those videos about Columbine, crackheads, and @$$hole Republicans were "manufactured", I suppose.

The marks of a real man are not only to act appropriately, but to be accountable for one's actions. Jones can do neither. He's a pathetic excuse for an American man. The real question is why he was appointed to a position of such authority (Green Czar) in the first place.

It stinks of the Chicago politics that Obama brought to the White House and how he runs it. Somehow, none of this surprising. Very few of his appointees have paid their taxes until forced to do so to accept the job (but have no problem levying more taxes on us in fly-over country).

Jones goes on to say, "It has been a great honor to serve my country and my President in this capacity. I thank everyone who has offered support and encouragement. I am proud to have been able to make a contribution to the clean energy future. I will continue to do so, in the months and years ahead."

Mr. Jones, don't drag my country's name through the mud by associating yourself with it. You have no honor and certainly no capacity for answering honestly for you misdeeds. A Harvard-educated person who signs a petition without reading it?

Sir, you disgrace this great nation and your school.

Will Obama Administration Nationalize Banks?

That's the question being bandied about not only in the financial sector, but around kitchen counters and in diners across the nation. The Obama administration is trying to quell this speculation.

They trotted out Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, who said, "This administration continues to strongly believe that a privately held banking system is the correct way to go, ensuring they are regulated sufficiently by this government."

It seems the keyword here is "believe". That's a relatively lukewarm term when citizens (at least conservatives and libertarians) would prefer to hear something more along the lines of "insist".



The two banks that are currently the most worrisome are Bank of America and Citigroup. The bottom line is if nationalization takes place, shareholders would likely be wiped out.

Is this any way to treat citizens? Hardly. When times were great, Wall Street institutions didn't mind slamming people with high credit interest rates. When times got bad because of lending irresponsibility, taxpayers had to bail them out. Some of the money went for lofty bonuses.

Where is the shame, where is the shame? President Obama needs to step up and show leadership and take these banks to task. That's some change I'd like to see.

Tom Hanks Endorses Barak Obama?

I suppose it's true - I just saw the short on Youtube. Yes, I know it's trendy when a Hollywood type makes a political endorsement but I'm not too sure about the credibility here. The reasons Tom Hanks gave for the endorsement were as empty and nebulous as Obama's speeches.

That's the problem I have with Obama. Granted, he's a suburb orator, but there's nothing of substance in his speeches. Even when he outlines a policy he hopes to implement, it's usually a vortex of bloated social programs.

The problem is, how will he pay for it? Oh that's right, tax rich folks and corporations. Well, the problem there is that rich folks already pay almost all the taxes in this country. And guess what? They are the ones that create jobs for the rest of us. I've never been hired by a poor man.

And corporations? We already have the second highest corporate tax structure in the world. That's why jobs are being outsourced overseas. Want to see more of that? Put Obama in the White House.

Hanks says he wants to elect Obama because "he has vision". Then, because of that, he equates him to F.D.R. and Ronald Reagan. Hey Tom, put down the Kool-Aid! I have a vision too, but I don't have executive experience. And neither does Obama.

Another reason for Hank's endorsement is because the country needs a "seismic shift". I'm all about seismic shifts, but:

1. Not just for the sake of having one, and
2. I don't want to put my money on the shifter before he explains, in detail, what he's going to shift, and how.

Again, Tom, put down the Kool-Aid and ask some questions.