Misery Index

The House Democrats are discussing taking 401(k)s back to the value they were in August, 2008 before the stock market declined and restoring the 401(k) back to its full value.  Then they are discussing seizing those funds and putting it into a Social Security fund that will grow by 3% each year with government bonds, which will be adjusted for inflation.  The most one would be able to contribute to it each year would be 5%.  A company match will no longer happen.

A plan by a professor of economic-policy, Teresa Ghilarducci, states that, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration.  The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3% a year, adjusted for inflation. [Ghilarducci's Testamony to the House [PDF] on October 07, 2008]

"I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s," Ghilarducci said in an interview.  "401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won't have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break."  "I want to spend our nation's dollar for retirement security better.  Everybody would now be covered" if the plan were adopted.

John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, NY has said, "From where I sit that's just crazy."  "A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer," he said.  "If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets," said Belluardo.

Ed Ferrigno, vice president of the Washington office of The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America has said, "Some of the tenor [of the hearings last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system."

James Pethokoukis writing for the US News described the plan:

In place of 401(k) plans, she [Ghilarducci] would have workers transfer their dough into the government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker.  The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs.  Each worker would also have to save 5% of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3% return.  Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

The Carolina Journal and LGF reported:

Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts - including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts manged by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401)k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School of Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism.  Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers' retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

This type of plan didn't work so well in Argentina.  In Argentina, private pensions are somewhat like 401(k) accounts in the United States.  Argentine lawmakers are considering a plan to nationalize about $26 billion in private pension funds.

Argentina announced last month on October 21, in what has been called a "surprise bill",  that it was taking over the pension system to protect workers from losses, thus nationalizing the pension system in a way to raise funds to avoid its second default in a decade.  Currently Argentina has about $150 billion in debt.

After the release of this announcement, the Merval index (the Argentina version of the NYSE) fell more than 10% the same day and the next day, and by Friday had dropped 28%.  The damage was worse in the local debt markets, where trading volume for a a key local bond market was practically zero the next day, Wednesday, compared to a normal day's turnover of about $1 billion.

A few days later, a U.S. judge ordered the freezing of more than $553 million in U.S. investments held by the Argentine pension funds that the government intends to nationalize.  The judge ordered the blocking of property in the US "including but not limited to cash, deposits, real property, instruments, securities, security entitlements, security accounts, equity interests, claims, and contractual rights and interest" maintained in the name of the Argentine pension funds. 

However, another judge has blocked Argentina from transferring any of the pension fund investment out of the US until he hears the complaints of bondholders.  Argentine officials saw this as "an attempt by vulture funds to take possession of these assets without considering whether it belongs to them."

It was announced just today, that the pension nationalization bill has passed in the Argentinian Lower House.  The Senate will vote on the bill later this month.

RANT ON

So lets talk about me/us for a minute.  We, meaning us.. you know what I mean, place 4% of our income into a 401(k) account which is matched by the company my other half works for.  (Yes I have my own, however its rather small, and basically is the same program that my other half has.)  This was placed into a 4.8% fixed interest account back in September before all this hoopla.  Before that, there was a hit of about 9% since the beginning of the year, which is acceptable considering many lost 40% or more.  That is the chance one takes when they invest and unfortunately, this can not be taken as a loss.  But moving forward, any money that is placed into this account is not taxed. 

In comparison to the Dem's idea, an additional 1% would be taken out of income, and additionally the entire 5% would be taxed and placed into a 3% fixed interest account, giving $600 bucks a year in addition.  Also by doing this, this means that if a loan is needed, it can not be done as the government has the money, and can use it as it sees fit via the Social Security Surplus Bill.

So lets look at the first year numbers under this new plan, with an income of say $50K, shall we?

So using the above example, who makes more money off of this?  Is all this worth a 1% return on your retirement?  The government does make more money off YOUR investment, a LOT more money, than you would under it being privatized, and you get a measly 1% return.....  how generous of them.  Or is this an example of "sharing the wealth?"

This also means that all the money that is in the stock market would disappear.  What does one think happens when there is a mass sale of stock?  First the market drops like a bomb, and then secondly, what bank or investment company has the funds to cash up for those sales.  Oh yea, the $700 billion, or rather $1.7 trillion, or rather, whatever number it has grown to today.

Additionally, what would happen if everyone decided to cash out their 401(k)s at one time, thus a "run on 401(k)s"?  First one would have to pay a 10% penalty tax for early withdrawal if one is not 59 1/2 years old, thus the government makes money.  Secondly, you are taxed just like your income tax as pulling out a 401(k) is seen as income.  So thus, the government takes part of your money.  Basically it comes out to right around a 25% loss for early withdrawal on the average overall.  Then of course, is the scenario above where everyone is selling on the market, companies don't have the funds to back up their stock, and around and around we go on the merry-go-round again.  That is, if the Democrats who want your money, don't immediately put restrictions on early withdraws on 401(k)s before this bill ever makes it to the floor.  So if you think companies falling, banks falling and unemployment is bad now.... what do you think will happen if the Democrats seize your 401(k)s?

Also in the discussions, there is the elimination of the 401(k) tax break which has been stated to be around $80 billion.  This means that any money you place into a retirement account is taxable, where as it is now not taxable.  This increases your tax liability and thus your income tax raises.  Additionally, this increases the government's income.

And meanwhile, the government can use your money via the Social Security surplus bill for their own purpose via the Social Security Surplus Bill.

If you ever wondered how the government was going to pay for the bank bailouts, well now you don't have to wonder.

SOURCES:

• Marketplace
• Breitbart
• Financial Times
• Bloomberg

In Philadelphia a video blogger went to the streets to capture the madness cheers for Obama.  In the video cars are honking all over, people are walking in the street and cheers can be heard everywhere.  Meanwhile down at City Hall, people are just plain going crazy with excitement over the announcement that Obama has won the election, and streets are crowded with people. 

But what the man didn't plan on was this;  finding one man who was wearing a McCain t-shirt with police surrounding him.  One officer states to the man "Come back here with me please", leading him away from the crowd.  There doesn't seem to be a riot against the man, he doesn't seem to be in a fight with anyone, he's just simply there.

What the police officer says next to the man is inaudible however, the man says he's not there to cause trouble.  The police officer says to the man "I'm not going to tell you again."  The man replies pointing to his McCain t-shirt that its called "freedom of speech." 

A separate officer attempts to grab the man's arm and he turns to face the other officer and the man finds himself surrounded by now three officers who are forcibly removing him from the street.  What is interesting to note at this moment is that "Boos" and thumbs down are heard and seen from the Obama crowd at this action.

Once the man is on the sidewalk, he is told by the police to just "walk away".  Another officer is heard saying "You know what, don't tell him no more, don't tell him no more, just lock him up."  The man initially stands there and walks over to the man with the camera starting to talk to him, he is grabbed forcefully by the police, [hearing now the crowd behind the scene chanting "Obama.. Obama.. Obama..." while watching the police arrest the man and obviously realizing that the man was wearing a McCain shirt and not an Obama supporter], the man is handcuffed and led away to a police vehicle.

When the man is placed in the police vehicle, cheers can be heard in the background.

One thing to note, the man does have a styrofoam sword in his shirt.  If this were the issue, then when the sword is taken by an Obama fan, then the police would have gone after that person, the the McCain shirt man.

Welcome to Socialism people and the end of your Constitutional Rights aka Martial Law.

OBAMAS ONLINE BIRTH CERTIFICATE

So lets take a look at Obama's digital copy of his birth certificate.   On Obamas "Fight The Smears" website, they have posted a low resolution image of Obama's "Birth Certificate" back on June 13, 2008.   Here and here is an extremely high resolution image of the "birth certificate".  The image to the left states "Certificate of Live Birth", not a "Birth Certificate".  A live birth certificate is a secondary source of identification for the purpose of establishing Hawaiian ancestry.  Such certification of a "Certificate of Live Birth" is ONLY issued when a birth certificate cannot be located in the vital records.

Now another issue that has been raised is that this document is not the "original" birth certificate, in relation to the same font used throughout the document.  Well, if the original birth certificate is missing, then information is pulled from a data base.  Additionally, if you look in the lower right hand corner of the document, you will see it states laser, thus yes it is NOT an original scan of a birth certificate however, it is information pulled from a database and put into a modern format. 

Additionally looking around the "Internez" a name kept popping up as a comparison of a birth certificate to Obama's.  That name was Patricia Decosta who was born in 1930.  The two are virtually identical.  Thus the format is correct, the font is correct but a stamp is shown on that document, however reversed, implying that the reverse does have a reverse stamp.

There was also a claim that the digital image of Obama's "Live Birth" was infact his sisters since there were three digital images of Obama's Certification floating around.  It's pretty complicated if you are not in the IT world however, he does raise some good points. But if you are interested, you can read about it over at The Obambi.com Blog.  It's written by someone who claims to be a digital forensic investigator who has shown his credential to blog owner as a 20 years in the computer field, performing computer forensic investigations since 1993, board certified as a forensic computer examiner (meaning he can testify as an expert witness at trials) but states that he does not give out his personal information on the net because "if I end up at the bottom of a construction site somewhere in NJ the world will still have all the information I was going to provide."  He has determined that the name on the original Certificate of Live Birth is Maya Kassandra Soetoro.

As for all the other issues of no raised seal of certification, other than a bleed through of a date stamp on the rear, or pixelation issues around the text on the page, indicating that the text was added on a blank document, the issue of the certificate number being blacked out, and the issue of looking at the actual hex code of the image showing modifications via Photoshop CS3 on 06/12/2008, well, FactCheck.org did some research.

They state "we can attest to the fact that it [the birth certificate] is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.  We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates).  We even brought home a few photographs. [...]

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate.  The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns.  The short form is printed by the state and draws from a databse with fewer details.  The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short from has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department.  We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why the only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

Here are the photographs, which SHOW the Certificate number as 151 1961 -010641.  Click each picture for a high resolution of each.

Comparing the High Resolution Picture versus an Actual picture of the document, they are the same.  If you compare the upper fold line on the actual picture of the document versus the scanned document, the upper fold line does line up perfectly.  So they are the same document. 

But that myth of Obama not being born in Hawaii, at least at this point, has been really debunked via a newspaper article showing a birth announcement to a "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama although it has been stated by Michelle Obama that Barack's mother was "very single" when she had him.  A Time magazine article states that the couple married on February 2, 1961 in Maui, Hawaii after discovering she was pregnant.

From 'Obama:  From Promise to Power," pg. 27:  "Obama later confessed that he never searched for the government documents on the marriage [of his parents], although Madelyn (Obama's maternal grandmother) insisted they were legally married.'  Also, note that Obama's father apparently was not legally divorced from his first wife back in Kenya at the time, a point of contention that ultimately led to their separation.

The only thing I can think of is that his parents lied for the simple reason that back in the 60s, it wasn't a very good thing for an unwed woman to have a child.  The newspaper acquired the information from Hawaii Vital Records.  At the end of each week, Vital Records would post a sheet for the newspaper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces.  At that time, birth announcement were not paid for release in the newspaper, as they are done today.

At the time in the early 1960s, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up.  They'd also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. 

DUAL CITIZENSHIP?

It has been stated that Obama when born or shortly after birth, acquired dual citizenship of the United States and of the British Crown - not Kenya (especially since Kenya did not exist at the time of his birth as a separate country, it was a colony) as Africa and Indonesia do not have dual citizenships yet British Crown citizens do have dual citizenship.

I also have some issues with Obama and possible Indonesian citizenship when his mother married Soetoro and being a registered "muslim" although he proclaims on his website that he's "always been Christian".

Obama seems to have only lived in Indonesia either four or five years (1967 - 1972), however in his own book The Audacity of Hope, p. 204, he states he lived in Indonesia for five years.

"During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia.......'

A person would have to live in Indonesia for five years to have to relinquish citizenship, and in those days Indonesia was at war and only Indonesian citizens were allowed to enroll in public school.  If the senator's citizenship was switched to Indonesian, and later switched back, he would then be referenced as a natural citizen, and would not be eligible for president.

This one is pretty murky due to lack of documents......

THE LEGAL STATUS OF OBAMA'S MOTHER

 There has also been some rumors and scuttlebutt about Obama and his mother's legal status in the United States.  When Obama was born, his mother was 18.

According to FindLaw.com, cited by Jim Geraghty, the requirements that were inforce from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama's birth, state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."  He then points out that Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."

So, is Barack a natural-born citizen based upon his mother's citizenship?  According to Ron Gotcher, a California immigration lawyer, the answer is yes.

Gotcher write, "...over the concepts of jus sanguinis and jus soli."  Under jus sanguinis, a person's citizenship is transmitted "by the blood" - by inheritance from his or her parents or grandparents.  In the United States, we recognize citizenship through parentage in a number of cases.

But it is not necessary to look to the statutes that deal with citizenship through just sanguinis, since Senator Obama's citizenship derives from jus soli - citizenship through place of birth.

According to Gotcher, "The Fourteenth Amendment commands that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

"This was clarified by the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, which provided that 'All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States.'"

"Senator Obama was born in the State of Hawaii two years after it became a state on Aug. 21, 1959.  As such, he acquired United States citizenship automatically at birth."  "All that matters is that the child is born here," Gotcher says. 

ALSO ON THE RACE CARD ISSUE

Obama's camp uses the term "African-American" and not black because they know he is African Arab and not African black.  Barack Obama has only one black great-great-grandmother on his father's side while the other 7 were Arab.  That makes him 50% white, 43.75% Arab, and 6.25% black.  12.5% is the minimum required to legally claim any racial status in America.  PROVE ME WRONG.  So let's DROP this race card issue now.  AGAIN, I challenge you to prove me wrong.  Socialist is not a codeword for black as Obama's camp wants you to believe based on Hoover history.  Socialist is a word for a person's political beliefs.  How can socialist be a codeword for black, when the now defunct U.S.S.R was not black? Vietnam?  Cuba?  China?  Yea.. okay....... ignore me more Obamadamnnation, Obamanation.

REMAINING QUESTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP

But why allow a couple of individuals from a website access to this document, but not the press?  SERIOUSLY.  And why not show it in a court of law?   Philip Berg filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania on August 21, 2008, requesting the courts to force Obama to produce a birth certificate.  According to Bert, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, his stepfather later changed his citizenship to Indonesian.  Berg bases this on the years the senator was enrolled in the Indonesian public school system as Barry Soetoro (his stepfather's surname).

In those days Indonesia was at war and only Indonesian citizens were allowed to enroll in public school.  If the senator's citizenship was switched to Indonesian, and later switched back, he would then be referenced as a natural citizen, and would not be eligible for president.

Back on Sept 15, 2008 Berg files a Request for Admissions, meaning Obama had until Oct. 15 to answer or face the consequences of Rule 36.  During the entire months of Sept & Oct, 2008 Obama has not shown his birth certificate instead choosing to file several versions of a motions to dismiss. 

On October 15, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama's lawyers to produce a "vault" copy of his birth certificate expired, but yet there was still no response from Obama or his lawyers.  Berg stated that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that Obama was born in Mombosa, Kenya.  On Oct 21, Berg cited Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.

On Oct 24, 2008, U.S. Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick, dismissed (Ruling Attachment - PDF) the lawsuit brought by Berg.  Additionally a Memorandum and Order is available (PDF).  The judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.  Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."  The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."

On Oct 25, 2008, Berg announced that he was appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court stating:

"I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution.  If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to '... Government of the people, by the people, for the people..' 

Another interesting twist this week around Oct 27, 2008 is that Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle effectively barred anyone but Obama himself from obtaining a copy of his birth certificate.    His birth certificate has been sealed and Lingle instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access tot he original document under any circumstances.

Also on Oct 27th, 2008, Judge Barclay Surrick  ordered (PDF) "having dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive RELIFE, it is ORDERD that all pending motions are DISMISSED as moot."

PERSONAL THOUGHTS

On the Fight the Smears website, there is an option to send a message to someone stating "Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't really about a piece of paper, though -- they're about manipulating you into thinking Barack is different...  Together we can make sure these negative and divisive attacks don't affect this election."  Well HELL YEA he's different.  He thinks he exempt from showing that he's a Natural Born US Citizen unlike every other citizen of the United States, thus manipulating YOU into believe that we who question his words are the bad people when all we are trying to do is quell a rumor by asking for evidence that he is Natural Born, thus protecting the Constitution of the United States.   So yea, I am going to assume that Obama is NOT an American citizen, simply by Obama and his campaign's words and actions.  Trying to separate the us and them is NOT the American way.  Its about "We the people...."  how quickly people forget.......

And I thought to myself, why would Obama NOT have his birth certificate and his campaign need to apply for one back in 2007?  Well, my guess is that he has his own personal copy, and his campaign needed a copy also.  Obama, care to "share the wealth" of information?  Again, actions speak louder than words, or webpages on the Internet.  Oh wait, by me asking this question, Im anti-American and a racist.  Wait, how can it be racist if he's 50% white?  Again, thanks for playing.

And what is the big deal about showing your birth certificate?  If you have nothing to hide, then there's not a problem.  Obviously something is "amiss" with the original document by simple defiance of refusal to show evidence.  This whole fiasco would be over by Obama simply showing his birth certificate, but no, he refuses to answer to the United States in typical Obama style by "ignoring" the question and stating that those who question his word are unAmerican.  It is not very much to ask of a candidate for President.  After all, McCain's birth was raked over the coals thoroughly, is it not tit-for-tat to do the same Obama?  Why is Obama exempt?  And why are government officials covering for him, by not allowing access to information.

And there still leaves the question that Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.  World News Daily attempted to obtain any documents concerning Obama in Kenya however, they were told by the government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

One thought though, if Obama does become president, wouldn't his original birth certificate be included in the "Freedom of Information Act", or under National Security and Homeland Security laws for protection of terrorism?  How can you give a President "Top Secret" security clearance WITHOUT a valid birth certificate, oh wait the State Department accepts the above "Certification" as a legal document of citizenship.  So, here's the next question, is there even a background check before becoming President of the United States?  Or do we just take them for face value on their words?  I guess it's just too much to ask for a "stupid piece of paper" to increase votes......  Thoughts to ponder.

MOVING ON

Historically, politicians are notorious for saying one thing to get into office, and then forgetting what they promised in the past.  Lets see if Obama can really put all he says, as actions speak louder than words.  And then when he doesn't, let's see how things pan out from there.  Obama has put a lot on his plate, lets see if he can really dish it all out to the United States.  Time will answer all questions.

ADDITIONAL SOURCES:

• TD BLOG
• Los Angeles Times
• Obama Crimes
• Time Magazine

"This is uncharted territory,"  Kenneth Goldstein, the director of the Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin, told the newspaper.  "We've certainly seen heavy advertising battles before.  But we've never seen in a presidential race one side having such a lopsided advantage."

In a New York Times article dated Oct 17, it was report that Obama has advertisements running repeatedly day and night, on local stations and on the major broadcast networks, on niche cable networks and even on video games and his own dedicated satellite channels.  The article also stated that Obama bought heavily on football games and other nationally televised programs that, according to CMAG, a service that monitors political advertising, Obama spent $6.5 million on a day when McCain spent less than $1 million.

According to a UPI article dated Oct 18, Obama is likely to surpass the all-time presidential campaign ad-spending record set in 2004 by President Bush which was $188 million.

Courtesy ads are being circulated in nine video games from Electronic Arts, and according to NPR, another nine!  The ads are on billboards and other highly visible objects in mostly sports games like Madden NFL 09 and NBA Live 08, and according to Electronic Arts, targeted at males aged 18 to 34.  And how is this done?  The manufacturers slipstream the compressed image files via your internet connection, so when you connect your XboxLIVE, the ads download in the background (without, of course, user notification).  At some point as your cruising around the race track or slamming hockey players into plexiglass, there's Obama, with a message that early voting is underway.

In one commercial, which was a minute-long, Obama is seen recounting "one of my earliest memories:  going with Grandfather to see some of the astronauts, being brought back after a splashdown, sitting on his shoulders and waving a little American flag."  Can anyone please tell me what this has to do with the election, what it has to do with Obama's economic plans, what it has to do with how this country is to be run, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Is it just me, or does this seem like a HUGE waste of money with Obama to be the most expensive president EVER!!  And what you don't realize, is this is a subliminal marketing tool.  No there are no "subliminal" messages in the ads however, the more you see his face, the more you think about him, and more familiar with him, and thus you vote for him.  It's one of the oldest marketing tricks in the book.  Are you going to fall for it too?  Obama is counting on it to work.

ENOUGH already.  STOP THE MADNESS.  Why do I need a reminder to vote?  Why do I need a reminder from Obama to vote? Why do I need to see Obama's picture EVERYWHERE I go whether it be out in public or at home?  If he's like this now during an election, can you imagine what he would be like if he were president?

And one final thought to ponder, why is it so important to Obama for you to vote early?  Why do you have to make a decision RIGHT NOW?  Feel like a car salesman is pressuring you?

Oh and a message to Obama?  My Father can't send email just like McCain supposedly can't, yet my Father served in WWII in Hawaii.  If not being able to send email is a determining factor of leadership and that McCain is out of touch, then what does that make my own father, and everyone else that is over 70 years old?  According to your campaign manager David Pfouffle, you are going to fight McCain on big issues that matter to the American people.  McCain supposedly not being able to use a computer (which incidentally came from a report of when McCain's fingers were broken and he couldn't type on a keyboard, tie his shoes or comb his hair) is a "big issue".  Yea, there some big issues alright, but its not with McCain.  And tell me Obama, what have you done for this country, other than run your mouth.

And no, I have not decided who I am going to vote for, but I know one person I am NOT going to vote for.

I leave with this new ad against Obama.