Jeannie DeAngelis

“Every day that goes by, we learn more about the horrifying scope of this catastrophe – destruction and suffering that defies comprehension.”  The President isn’t talking about the first year of the Obama presidency, but rather the dire situation in distressed Haiti.

While introducing the Clinton/Bush Haiti Relief Fund Obama shared that the fund  is a conduit, “…into the incredible generosity, the ingenuity, [and] the can-do spirit of the American people in helping our neighbors in need. ” 

Who better than Obama to discuss and represent American openhandedness and the spirit of giving?

In fact, in response to what Barack Obama described as, “deeply moving,” “heartbreaking images of devastation” the President and First Lady donated a whopping $15,000.00 to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. Yes, a figure worth repeating, $15,000.00.   But then again, the Obama’s are not known altruistic benevolence when it comes to sharing the contents of the Obama joint bank account.

In previous comments concerning Haiti, the President implored Americans to give, saying, “Despite the fact that we are experiencing tough times here at home, I would encourage those Americans who want to support the urgent humanitarian efforts to go to where you can learn how to contribute.”

Maybe Obama is the one who needs to “learn how to contribute?”  According to CNN Money Barack Obama is worth 1.3 million and donated 1.5% or $15,000.00?  Is this how the President leads the American people to give to a relief effort?

Not to worry, the Obama family Hawaiian vacation fund is never in jeopardy of being depleted by causes like major earthquakes. Actually, according to historical records of charitable giving, a 1% contribution is not out of character for Barry and Michelle.  Just this week, Sam Stein of the Huffington Post outlined the First Couple’s giving record from 2000 through 2004.  During that period, the Obama’s earned about $300-thousand dollars a year, but gave no more than $3,500.00 or 1% of their annual income.

In 2005 that number jumped to $77,315 or 4.7% and in 2006 to $60,307, a rousing 6.1 percent.  During those poverty-stricken years, one righteous cause Obama deemed worthy was Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ.  Giving $27,000.00 to a racist, anti-Semitic pastor the President claimed he was unaware spewed hate speech.

The Obama’s also gave to causes such as the African Muntu Dance Theater and The Rochelle Lee Fund who sponsor Big Read programs in conjunction with the National Endowment for the Arts. Oh, and let’s not forget the $13,107.00 donation to the Congressional Black Caucus listed as a “charity gift.”

The Obama’s tax records indicate that, when it comes to “sharing the wealth” the couple fell short of the “Biblical 10% tithe.” Averaging $225-thousand dollars a year and giving $2,500.00 to charity, which by the way works out to $6.84 cents a day, from a President with zero compunction about picking the pockets of Americans who, no thanks to liberal policies, earn less and give more-is appalling.

As fortune would have it, the esteemed Nobel Peace Prize winner can redeem his tightfisted reputation by exhibiting munificence and bestowing the $1.4 million in Oslo prize money to the Haiti relief fund. Robert Gibbs did say, “The money would be donated to charity.” What could be a better cause to support? 

Making a $1.4 million contribution would not only assist the devastated Haitians, but, in the process, such a bighearted gesture could also bolster the wilting President’s global reputation?  

Page Printed from: at January 22, 2010 – 11:06:55 PM CST

two of the GOP’s most visible figures — Meghan and Cindy McCain — have embraced same-sex marriage.

A quiet revolution of GOP progressives?

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for the Republican Party.

First, the GOP elects Scott Brown to the US Senate, a guy with some serious conservative credibility, but also some serious culture war ambiguity in his background.

This is a politician who posed nude in Cosmo, whose wife appeared in a bikini in a rock-and-roll MTV video, and whose daughter appeared on American Idol.

Brown is generally pro-choice, though he opposes late-term procedures; and he voted in favor of Massachusetts’ universal healthcare plan.

Meanwhile, two of the GOP’s most visible figures — Meghan and Cindy McCain — have embraced same-sex marriage.

Then, one of the most prominent Republican mayors in the country, San Diego’s Jerry Sanders, broadcast his own support for gay marriage, after discovering that his daughter is a lesbian in a committed relationship.

“I could not tell a whole segment of our community they were less deserving of marriage than anyone else simply due to their sexual orientation,” said Sanders. “I do believe times have changed and opinions change. The concept of a separate but equal institution is not something I can support.”

Throw into this mix the weird energy of Ron Paul’s libertarian anti-war activism and you have a picture of a party with a deep contrarian streak.

No doubt this is a time of outsized tea party activism, with conservatives still dominating the Republican agenda.

But that fact may reflect the media’s agenda — Fox News, Rush, etc. — more than the complex debate going on at the grassroots.

What’s clear is that a vivid undercurrent exists among GOP leaders — many from urban areas, and from blue states — who are wrestling in interesting ways with modern American life.

Geithner aired concern on bank limits-sources

Geithner aired concern on bank limits-sources

Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:02am GMT

* Geithner has concerns over proposed bank limits–sources

* Treasury chief worried about competition, root of crisis

* Geithner tells PBS that limits not politically motivated (Adds comments from Geithner and Summers, analyst comment)

By Karey Wutkowski and Steve Eder

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK, Jan 21 (Reuters) – U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed some skepticism behind closed doors about the broad bank limits proposed on Thursday by his boss, President Barack Obama, according to financial industry sources.

The sources, speaking anonymously because Geithner has not spoken publicly about his reservations, said the Treasury chief is concerned the proposed limits on big banks’ trading and size could impact U.S. firms’ global competitiveness.

He also has concerns that limits on proprietary trading do not necessarily get at the root of the problems and excesses that fueled the recent financial meltdown, the sources said.

But a White House official said Geithner was on board with Obama’s economic team behind the proposals.

Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, worked closely with Paul Volcker, who heads a panel of outside advisers, in developing the proposals, the official said.

“The plan was submitted to the president with a unanimous recommendation from the economic team,” the official said.

In a television interview, Geithner said the proposal was driven by a desire to ensure a stable financial system, not by politics.

Geithner told PBS NewsHour the Obama administration decided to unveil the proposals months after its original sweeping financial reform plan to bring “a little more clarity” to how big banks could be reined in. Geithner had backed a proposal last fall to give regulators power to curb a firm’s size.

Summers, in an interview with CNBC, said the latest proposal was written before a Democrat, Martha Coakley, lost a closely watched race for the Massachusetts Senate seat on Tuesday. Obama had painted her opponent, Republican Scott Brown, as a friend of Wall Street.


Obama’s proposals would prevent banks or financial institutions that own banks from investing in, owning or sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund.

He called for a new cap on the size of banks in relation to the overall financial sector that would take into account not only bank deposits, which are already capped, but also liabilities and other non-deposit funding sources.

The proposed rules also would bar institutions from proprietary trading operations that are for their own profit and unrelated to serving customers. For details [ID:nN21200151]

The administration had already sharpened its rhetoric against Wall Street where the announcement was met with disdain. Bank shares slid and the dollar fell against other currencies. [ID:nN21145261]

The proposals were largely driven by Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who for more than a year has advocated curbs on big financial firms to limit their ability to do harm.

The White House official said Obama’s economic team considered the concern that proprietary trading was not at the heart of the problems that fueled the financial crisis.

But it concluded that reform needed to be about more than just fighting the last war, it needed to address sources of future risk as well, the official said.

Lawrence White, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business and a former regulator, said Obama’s proposals were “a solution to the wrong problem.”

“They have this rhetoric that it was proprietary trading that was the problem,” White said. “That’s wrong.”

Obama has recently tried to capitalize on populist anger against the big banks, proposing last week a major tax on banks to recoup taxpayer losses related to the bailout.

Underscoring the high level of public anger at banks, a majority of 1,006 Americans surveyed in a Thomson Reuters/Ipsos poll said executive pay was too high. [ID:nN21222779]

Douglas Elliott, a former JPMorgan investment banker now with the Brookings Institution, said he didn’t know Obama’s motivations, but thought his move was “smart politics.”

“Everybody hates the bankers now and when you come out with something saying we are going to keep them from getting bigger and taking outrageous risks, of course it comes out favorable,” Elliott said. “I do have some concerns about the public policy aspects.” (Reporting by Karey Wutkowski in Washington and Steve Eder in New York with additional reporting by Jeff Mason and Glenn Somerville; Editing by Kenneth Barry and Diane Craft, Gary Hill)

How Low Will He Go?

How Low Will He Go?

January 22nd, 2010 Posted By Erik Wong.


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends). Larry Sabato takes a look at Obama’s first year in office.

Later today, Rasmussen Reports will issue a tracking update on the health care issue showing that expectations the legislation will pass have fallen dramatically since Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts. Since Nancy Pelosi has indicated that there are not enough votes in the House to pass the Senate proposal, this will be our final tracking update on the current legislation. If the Democrats in Congress develop a new approach for health care legislation, we will resume tracking at that time.

Forty-five percent (45%) believe General Motors will need more government bailouts.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

In the Pennsylvania Senate race, Pat Toomey now leads both Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak. In Arizona, John McCain has opened a big lead over potential challenger J.D. Hayworth. In Georgia, if former Governor Roy Barnes is the Democratic nominee, the race for Governor could begin as a toss-up.


Rasmussen Reports has released Senate polls for Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. A commentary by Larry Sabato, suggests that if the election were held today, “the Democratic majority in the Senate would be reduced to just 52 seats.”

Rasmussen Reports has also released polls on the 2010 governor’s races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.


Obama Plan to Split Banks Could Crash Economy

Obama Plan to Split Banks Could Crash Economy

January 22nd, 2010

By John Berlau, Newsmax

 Obama is pursuing FDR like Banking Restrictions

President Obama’s proposal today to bring back 1930s-like separation of commercial and investment banks, dubbed Glass-Steagall II or Glass-Steagall 2.0, would do little to prevent the problem of financial institutions’ being too big to fail.

What it would do is hurt economic recovery, reduce types of financing available to businesses big and small, and give European and Asian financial services firms a huge competitive advantage over their U.S. counterparts.

The president’s proposed regulation would leave U.S. banks, in the phrasing of American Enterprise Institute scholar and former Treasury Department official Peter Wallison, “too big to fail or succeed.”

The proposal puts forth nothing to stop bailouts or modernize bankruptcy laws to make failure less systemic. Instead, it reintroduces a Depression-era structure for banking used nowhere else in the world. And it does nothing to stop the size or systemic dangers of the government-created financial giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were at the center of the mortgage crisis.

Read More:

Michelle Malkin Lead StoryConservatives: Beware of McCain Regression Syndrome

Lead Story

Michelle Malkin 

Conservatives: Beware of McCain Regression Syndrome

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 22, 2010 09:10 AM

The question isn’t why Sarah Palin is helping John McCain. The question is: What are you doing to stop him from cementing his Big Government Republican legacy?


Conservatives: Beware of McCain Regression Syndrome
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

Pay attention: In the afterglow of the Massachusetts Miracle, there are flickers of peril for The Right. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but like Paul Revere’s midnight-message, consider this warning “a cry of defiance, and not of fear.” Conservatives have worked hard over the past year to rebuild after Big Government Republican John McCain’s defeat. But McCain isn’t going gently into that good night.

Red Flag Number One: A reader from Arizona informed me the day after the Bay State Bombshell that he had received a robo-call from Massachusetts GOP Sen.-elect Scott Brown. “He basically wanted me to vote for John McCain in November,” the reader said in his description of the automated campaign call supporting the four-term Sen. McCain’s re-election bid. “No wonder [Brown] said he hadn’t had any sleep…he was busy recording phone messages!”

Red Flag Number Two: Also in the wake of the Massachusetts special election, the nation’s most popular conservative political figure, Sarah Palin, announced she would be campaigning for her former running mate in Arizona in March. Palin told Facebook followers that she’s going to “ride the tide with commonsense candidates” and help “heroes and statesmen” like McCain. Facing mounting conservative opposition in his home state and polls showing him virtually tied with possible GOP challenger and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, McCain welcomed the boost: “Sarah energized our nation and remains a leading voice in the Republican Party.”

Savor the irony: After a career spent bashing the right flank of the party, Sen. McCain is now clinging to its coattails to save his incumbent hide.

And pay attention to the hidden, more troubling irony: While he runs to the right to protect his seat, McCain’s political machine is working across the country to install liberal and establishment Republicans to secure his legacy.

In Florida, McCain’s Country First Political Action Committee is supporting the Senate bid of fellow illegal alien amnesty supporter and global warming alarmist, GOP Gov. Charlie Crist, whose crucial 2008 primary endorsement rescued McCain from disaster. Grass-roots conservatives support former GOP statehouse leader Marco Rubio – who is hitting Crist hard for lying to voters about his embrace of President Obama’s pork-laden, fraud-ridden stimulus package.

In Colorado, McCain and his meddlers infuriated the state party by anointing former lieutenant governor Jane Norton to challenge endangered Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet. She’s a milquetoast public official who has served on a lot of task forces and GOP clubs – and who happens to be the sister-in-law of big Beltway insider Charlie Black. An estimated 40 percent of her coffers are filled with out-of-state money (and much of that is flowing from the Beltway).

The mini-McCain of Colorado claims to oppose “special interests,” but has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from D.C. lobbyists at McCain’s behest – stifling the candidacy of strong conservative rivals led by grass-roots-supported Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, an amnesty opponent whose aggressive illegal immigration prosecutions have earned him the rage of the far Left and big business Right. A recent Rasmussen poll showed Buck and another GOP candidate Tom Wiens beating Bennet – despite the huge cash and crony advantage of front-runner and blank-slate Jane.

In California, McCain’s PAC supports former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina – a celebrity name with deep pockets of her own, massive media exposure, and a checkered business record. Fiorina served as the economic adviser to McCain, who supported the $700 billion TARP bailout, the $25 billion auto bailout, a $300 billion mortgage bailout, and the first $85 billion AIG bailout. As GOP rival and grass-roots-supported Chuck DeVore’s camp notes, Fiorina has also vacillated publicly over the Obama stimulus. With taxpayer “friends” like this, who needs Democrats?

With all due respect to McCain’s past noble war service, it’s time to head to the pasture. As the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, he was wrong on the constitutionality of the free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations. He was wrong to side with the junk-science global warming activists in pushing onerous carbon caps on America. He was on the wrong side of every Chicken Little-driven bailout. He was wrong in opposing enhanced CIA interrogation methods that have saved countless American lives and averted jihadi plots. And he was spectacularly wrong in teaming with the open-borders lobby to push a dangerous illegal alien amnesty.

Tea Party activists are rightly outraged by Sarah Palin’s decision to campaign for McCain, whose entrenched incumbency and progressive views are anathema to the movement. At least she has an excuse: She’s caught between a loyalty rock and a partisan hard place. The conservative base has no such obligations – and it is imperative that they get in the game (as they did in Massachusetts) before it’s too late. The movement to restore limited government in Washington has come too far, against all odds, to succumb to McCain Regression Syndrome now.



January 22nd, 2010

Barocky Road”

In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Random Ice Cream Company has introduced a new flavor: “Barocky Road”.

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes.  The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient.  The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.  The cost is $100.00 per scoop.  When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you who didn’t have the money to buy ice cream.  You are left with an empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream.

Are you stimulated?