Well of course! The Asian stock markets are down this morning. The (usually liberal) news pages of The Wall Street Journal are reporting that whatever economic recovery we've experienced in the United States is due to the resilience of the free market economy, not Washington's stimulus spending.

So ... what to do? Well, the Democrats are talking another stimulus bill! Just wonderful. We now know that the last stimulus bill was largely written in 2008 by some left-wing activist group called The Apollo Alliance. The board of that group features such luminaries as former Obama green-jobs czar and avowed communist Van Jones, with deep involvement by Bill Ayers and other Weather Underground characters. It wasn't a stimulus bill at all. Perhaps that's why it isn't working. The $787 billion dollar mess was nothing but a collection of spending dreams and schemes designed to please backers of Democrat causes and politicians. Stimulus money for a puppet theatre in Atlanta? Give me a break. And what can we say about millions spent to study grandparents in Alaska?

Still ... this idea of a new stimulus will get some strong attention in Washington. And why is that? That would be because improving out economy is not the primary goal of these politicians. Job one is to stay in office. Everything else comes in second --- and I'm not just talking Democrats here; I'm talking all of them. And how do you stay in office? By bringing home the pork, that's how. That's why so much of this stimulus spending was nothing but pure, 100% unadulterated pork. If they can pass this off on the government-educated dumb masses, so much the better.

Here's an idea. Read this and then see if you can figure out why our politicians wouldn't go for this in a heartbeat!

Because of America's punishing tax system there is a lot of money that is owned by Americans but invested overseas. How much? Well, before the economic downturn some people estimated that figure at around $13 trillion. That's with a "T" folks. How much of a hit has it taken? Well, let's cut it back by about 30% and say that the figure now stands at $11 trillion.

It would be grand, wouldn't it, if that money came back home to America to go to work in our economy? So ... why doesn't that happen? Taxes, that's why. That money is overseas doing well, thank you very much, earning money outside of our confiscatory tax system. If a corporation or individual tries to bring some of that money back home our federal government jumps on it like Clinton on a bimbo.

Now .. what if that money could come back home to work in our economy without being taxed? Under the FairTax, of course, that would be the case. Not only would that money come back to work here, but it could be put to work creating jobs and growing wealth without any tax component being added. But we don't have the FairTax right now, so how can we get this done?

AMNESTY!

There you go! Declare a tax amnesty for all American-owned dollar-denominated deposits overseas! Welcome that money back home without any taxes, any interest or any penalties. Just ask the money to come home and work here! Would every dollar come home? Certainly not! But let's just go for about one-half about $5.5 trillion! Do you have any idea what this could do for our economy? That's the equivalent of about seven Obama stimulus plans. What's more, this money wouldn't be spent by politicians trying to insure their reelection. The cash would belong to and would be spent by the private sector! You can be sure that unless someone saw an investment opportunity - a possibility of a financial return - the money would not be spent on puppet theatres or giant inflatable alligators (seriously). Over $5 trillion dollars infused into our economy could be quite a jolt, especially in the private sector.

OK ... is there anything wrong with this amnesty idea? Sure there is! I've already outlined it. The money would be spent by the private sector, not the government. We have an administration based on the premise that America's greatness comes from government, not freedom. In the minds of these politicians the way to make America greater is to move as much money from the private sector to the government as possible, and then have the government spend it. That, by the way, is exactly what Obama is trying to do with the overseas funds. Tax them. Send the IRS out there looking for these corporations and people. Bludgeon the Swiss into releasing account information. Increase penalties. Beat this money into submission and then seize as much of it as you can.

There are, after all, puppets to be built.

OK, so Chicago lost its Olympic bid. Big stinking surprise, right? There they were, Barack, Michelle and Oprah, traveling all the way to Copenhagen (on the taxpayer's dollar) to schmooze on behalf of the windy city, and Rio gets the Olympics. Maybe Oprah should have bought every member of the IOC a nice shiny new car. It really was rather sad to see that rock band up there in front of a few thousand Chicagoans trying to figure out what to play after the announcement was made. Any suggestions? How does that tune go.....?

Chicago!

Chicago!

We got our butts kicked.

Oh well, here's my problem. This got really absurd real quick last Friday afternoon. Across the web and the radio dial this whole Chicago/Olympics debacle suddenly became the sole and exclusive fault of just one man ... Barack Obama. He was the reason .. and the only reason .. that Chicago lost out.

Are you kidding me?

Let's consider some other possible reasons. First ... I went through the names of the members of the International Olympic Committee. Now this is probably not accurate because some of these gender-bending international names are hard to figure out; but I put it at about 89 men and about 17 women, give or take one or two of each, and maybe a few GLBTC types in there as well. Now ... have you been to Chicago? Have you seen the women there? Fine. They're OK, by Chicago Standards. And no ... Catherine Zeta Jones does NOT live in Chicago. Now ... have you been to Rio? Nuff said, right? Do the math; 89 men, 17 women voting on whether to hang out for the next seven years in Chicago or Rio. Now just how difficult is that?

Another comparison: Navy Pier to Rio's beaches.

Then there's the possibility that the president actually did make a difference when he went rushing off to Copenhagen; a negative difference. Not, however, because it was President Obama, but because it was the President of the United States. Look; many foreign countries are a bit weary of what they view as America throwing its weight around. Naturally, if they're attacked or buried under an avalanche or tsunami they would just LOVE to see some weighty American money thrown around ... but unless there's danger at the doorstep they want us to stay in the background for a change. Now I may see this as a dangerous policy, but I don't count. Perhaps the IOC saw a presidential visit as some sort of a mandate. Here's the American President over here telling us what to do again. Let's show him we can't be pushed around. Sure, some other heads of state made the pitch as well, but these buffoons couldn't get a Home Depot to move in, let alone an Olympics.

Then there's the Chicago reputation itself. Let's face it, Chicago is not known as the city of lights. I happen to love the place, but overseas Chicago is gangsters. It's Al Capone. It's the St. Valentine's Day massacre and Elliot Ness. Also .. even though I love visiting Chicago, once that jerk Daily plowed under Meigs I've wanted his butt in my briefcase. This isn't it, but it's good enough. Too bad Chicago had to suffer with him.

The point here is that a lot of conservatives are keeping themselves busy looking for a way to blame everything that is negative in their lives or every bad thing that happens to anyone who lives in or is associated with our country on Barack Obama. I think Obama is a dangerous man. Anyone who believes that America's greatness comes from government is dangerous to freedom. We have a community organizer who's primary political flirtation during his college years was with Marxism. I truly believe that this could be the man who ultimately destroys the dreams of our founding fathers.

Obama is dangerous and must be watched. Those who value freedom and independence would be well advised to chose their fights with Obama and the Social-Democrat Party well. If an alarm is sounded every time he scowls or steps on a crack then America's uneducated dumb masses will completely stop paying attention. A lot of political capital has been wasted ranting about something that really, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't make all that much of a difference; that being whether or not Chicago gets the Olympics. When a true threat comes along, how do we get the attention of a weary public? Let's forget this Olympics thing. It's over. The only real losers here are the corrupt Chicago political class that undoubtedly would have cashed in on this big time, and the unions that most certainly would have controlled every square foot of Olympic-related construction.

We could have a problem though. Isn't there a huge Jesus statue looking down on Rio? I guess the ACLU is going to have to get busy getting that thing removed before our athletes will be allowed to carry an American Flag during the opening ceremony.

It seems as though we've heard this line from Barack Obama before. Oh wait, we have ... during the campaign. For months we heard Barack Obama pin the hopes of our economic recovery on healthcare reform. Now the news has hit - our unemployment rate has reached 9.8% -- now is as good a time as ever to remember Rahm's advice: Never let a good crisis go to waste.

During his radio address over the weekend, Obama said that his healthcare plans would help to solve our unemployment problems because it would make small business startups more affordable. In Obama's world, forcing people to buy health insurance would allow aspiring entrepreneurs to feel at ease while switching jobs, starting their business and hiring workers. Obama said "reforming our health insurance system will be a critical step in rebuilding our economy so that our entrepreneurs can pursue the American dream again and our small businesses can grow and expand and create new jobs again." By the way .. this was virtually the same speech Obama gave last July. He's getting a bit repetitive.

What Obama fails to mention is that his healthcare plans include tax increases on the very same small businesses and entrepreneurs he is relying on to kick start this economy again. Not to mention the fact that plans for mandatory healthcare coverage could significantly impact small businesses and their abilities to grow. There's a clause in the Senate's plan that puts insurance mandates on any business that employs 50 people. So ... if this goes into effect, and you happen to be employing 54 people when it does ... how many people get fired? I put the number at five. And if you're a small business that employs 49 people when ObamaCare goes into effect, how many people do you hire? I put that number at zero.

The National Federation of Independent Business says, "Forcing employers to offer health insurance, plain and simple, will cost America jobs and revenue, and inhibit small businesses from growing. It's a bad idea any time, but is particularly destructive in the current economic environment."

This week, Nancy Pelosi and her myrmidons will work on their plans to pay for healthcare reform ... and you know they're just busting their guts to throw out some good old Democrat tax increases. Keep in mind that these are tax increases ON TOP of the increases that will come into effect when the Bush tax cuts expire.

But Nancy Pelosi has found herself trying to balance the egos of her Democrat Caucus and her union supporters. She has done this by suggesting a tax increase on "Cadillac" insurance plans. This type of tax is more popular in the Senate. In fact, the Baucus bill includes a 40% tax on insurers for plans worth more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families.

As of right now, none of the plans include an income surtax on the wealthy to pay the difference for these Democrat dreams and schemes. But who knows what she will propose this week. She may propose a tax on the evil, disgusting, vile rich people who dare to earn more than $500,000.

All we can be sure of is the fact that wealth envy is going to rear its ugly head again. I hope you are ready for it.

On Tuesday, October 6th, I will be hosting the GLA (Georgia Limousine Association) Charity Golf Classic at Eagle's Landing Country Club. This tournament is sponsored by AirTran Airlines and will benefit Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. We will have great prizes and auction items and breakfast, lunch and steak dinner will be provided. You can become a sponsor or register to play at glacharityclassic.com. Come out and help me support a wonderful organization that helps thousands of children every year.

... they will accomplish with cap-and-trade! I am referring to Obama's idea that healthcare reform is going to spur all sorts of new business and create all sorts of new jobs. Since we already know this won't be the case when it comes to healthcare reform, they most certainly will get their way with cap-and-trade legislation.

Last week, Barbara Boxer introduced her cap-and-trade bill. She, too, believes that cap-and-trade will lead to a jobs boom in the United States. She says that it would bring billions in private investment. Well - Barbara Boxer really isn't all that bright, so it's hard to take any jobs promise she makes seriously. It's far more likely that he taxing and regulatory schemes will be a jobs killer.

Assuming that Boxer's bill is somewhat similar to the Waxman-Markey climate bill that has been around for months, we can assume the following:

One independent analysis predicts our nation would lose 2 million jobs if the House plan is enacted. In Virginia, an estimated 15,500 jobs would be wiped out by 2015, and 72,000 jobs would be lost by 2030 under Waxman-Markey.

Even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) warned that a cap-and-trade climate bill could result in great economic pain for little environmental gain. The GAO noted that climate legislation could make American companies less able to compete internationally and drive American jobs overseas to nations that do not limit greenhouse gas emissions. This would increase international emissions enough to offset or overwhelm any reductions made by the United States.

I don't know about you, but that definitely sounds like a way to spur economic growth in our country. Don't ya think?

Last week I highlighted the liberal ad on healthcare for MoveOn.org. It included all sorts of Hollywood celebrities who sarcastically stuck up for the poor insurance companies who are making millions of dollars in profit while patients die (that was a quick summary). Well, Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website has done a parody of that PSA ... and it is worth a listen.

A lot of folks are calling this the next great battle over the First Amendment. Here's the story. A man by the name of Robert J. Stevens is a film producer. One of his films he produced was about dog fighting. So he shot some video of dog fights taking place, produced the video and sold some tapes.

Then Stevens was sentenced to 37-months in prison in violation of a federal law banning the trafficking of "depictions of animal cruelty." The issue at stake is whether the courts should consider dogfighting videos to be "too vile" to be protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court will hear his case tomorrow.

You can't miss this Victor Davis Hanson piece: The Obsolescence of a Slur.

A good post-mortem on the Cash-for-Clunkers mess.

Don't expect any Senators to actually read the healthcare bill. Even they admit that it is the most confusing things they have ever tried to read.

This week has been dubbed "Iran week" in Congress to debate new economic sanctions.

Maybe this is why ... the International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran has "sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable" nuclear bomb.

George Will explains how Barack Obama's foreign policy is not based on reality.

Also on foreign policy ... Obama's naiveté is extremely dangerous for our country.

Do you remember John Mackey, CEO and founder of Whole Foods? Here's a recent interview with Mackey since the liberals decided to boycott his store because of his ideas for healthcare reform.

California .... America's first failed state?

Saturday Night Live over the weekend says that it is impossible for Barack Obama to be leading our country on a path to socialism ... because Obama hasn't accomplished a darn thing since taking office.

Republican strategist Mike Murphy says that we have "one-party [TV] networks.

Alan Greenspan believes that our jobless rate will top 10%.

According to Senator Roland Burris, it is George Bush's fault that Chicago did not get the Olympics for 2016.

Another one of these articles proclaiming healthcare to be a right. Gotta love it when liberals check their logic at the door.

Wow, an article that acknowledges that Bush v. Gore upheld that the "individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the president of the United States" except under a form set by a state legislature.

How much was the United Auto Workers union responsible for the demise of Saturn?

It turns out that the Internet may be the biggest threat to the United States.

Was an innocent man executed in Texas? Was there a cover up?

You're not still eating rare hamburgers, are you?