Words from my Friend Chuck Norris :o}

Add a Comment

Comment by Cheryl Shuman on May 12, 2009 at 3:19pm

Thank you so much for inviting me to join your group! I'm looking forward to making a difference and getting to know all of you.

Kindest Personal Regards,
Cheryl Shuman
Beverly Hills, CA

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on March 17, 2009 at 4:50am

Posted: March 02, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

Ronald Reagan was right, "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

The political and financial math is easy to calculate. It doesn't take an MBA or a rocket scientist to figure it out – just an honest assessment of Washington's present landscape. Here's how the equation pans out:

Trillions of dollars in new debt for Americans (or more economic chaos)

The next stage of out-of-control government spending started with Bush's Wall Street bailout, or TARP, of $700 billion (new debt No. 1). But Congress didn't learn through that failure, and apparently neither did Obama. So the newly elected president pushed for the next $787 billion stimulus bill (debt No. 2). And that wasn't enough either, so the recent $410 billion omnibus spending bill (with 9,000 earmarks – 60 percent Democrat and 40 percent Republican in origin) is being railroaded through Congress to keep government moving until September (debt No. 3). And then Obama informed us last week that another $634 billion would be required for a down payment for universal healthcare – before there's a plan, there's already a payment (debt No. 4). And all of that doesn't include other stimuli on the government horizon, as Rep. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, noted when he called the mammoth $787 billion spending bill "stimulus No. 1" (that's debt No. 5, debt No. 6, debt No. 7, etc.).

If that isn't enough, Obama is asking for another roughly $3,600,000,000,000 (nearly $4 trillion) budget proposal for 2010, despite that the White House projects a 2009 budget shortfall of $1.5 trillion – triple the $455 billion in 2008. Even liberal media admits that Obama's spending will "leave a string of deficits dwarfing any in the nation's history."

All of these wild expenditures would be a little more bearable if we saw any signs of economic recovery. But how has all this alleged stimuli stabilized and grown the economy and the market? As our government has bailed, the Dow has dropped 2,000 points since Obama took office, roughly 200 points after every major speech he has made. And, yet, the borrowing and bailing goes on and on and on.

At what point does a spend-happy Democrat-leaning Congress protest its primary leader's outrageous borrowing and budget? When he reaches $5 trillion? $8 trillion? Is any Democrat politician concerned that such levels of escalating debt and spending will promote hyper-interest rates and a dead-in-the-water value of the dollar that leads other nations to no longer risk the purchase of our treasury bonds? Will the American public allow Washington to drive us to the poor house, as they prompt us to continue to chant, "Yes we can!" keep borrowing?
Obama and any congressional leaders tolerate for one moment during this recession any of the 9,000 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion, in the $410 billion omnibus spending bill? How can they justify $1.8 million for swine odor control in Iowa or $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Los Angeles? Have they all lost their fiscal minds?

So the big question is: How does Obama get away with racking up more expenses in his first 30 days in office than all the presidents combined had since the founding of our republic? Some say our recession warrants it. Others say his administration has played, or preyed, upon our economic woes. But I think it takes more than even a real depression to cause the type of unbridled spending we've seen over the last months. It takes the perfect economic and political storm, which is brewing right now over our nation, led by a president who has convinced the majority that "only government" is our savior.

Bernard Goldberg's "A Slobbering Love Affair" is a great book about the media's blind bias and infatuation with Obama, but his hypnotic effects permeate every stratum of society, from political corridors to public schools. Why? Because he's young, hip, cool, liberal and charismatic – and that's what sells today in America. Objectiveness and criticism flies right out the window at the mere mention of his name or any discussion of his excessive spending plans.

If G.W. Bush were still in office and made the exact same financial and legislative proposals, he would be publicly filleted and politically hung out on the wire for reckless monetary rule. Yet Obama's economic spending makes Bush's wartime bills look like chicken feed. But few Democratic leaders or pundits even question, let alone criticize, his fiscal leadership. Financial gurus who once railed Bush for excessive bailing now bow the knee at Obama's unbridled borrowing. Proof can be witnessed on television nearly every day, and last week was no exception.

On "Good Morning America" last Thursday, two of ABC's financial experts graded Obama's excessive borrowing and fiscal performance as a "B," while guest FOX financial expert Dave Ramsey rated it an "F." Despite the two "B" grades, one of the ABC financial experts quipped that one of the biggest problems with Obama's bailouts is that there is no real form of government accountability over the money pouring out of Washington. Yet they maintained their "B" grade for Obama's stewardship plan?

Here's an even better example. As Obama addressed Congress last Tuesday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi led the way in emotive spontaneous applause for her political hero. Pop-up Pelosi was bouncing up and down like Tigger on steroids, forcing Vice President Biden to rise "slowly" every time she jumped up, while trying to hide his frustration with her. Her eyes and facial expressions seemed almost giddy as she gazed at Obama, like a teenager infatuated with the popular high school jock.

As I watched this obsessive congressional circus, I asked myself, "Is this the type of objective bipartisan leadership we want running our government, leading our nation, and spending our money?"

If we are ever to restore the fiscal and leadership sanity to our government and economy, we need not reinvent the Great Depression wheel of Roosevelt's New Deal. We need to look to a time when Congress was more frugal in its spending and stabilized our government and economy. And in the past 100 years, one of the best examples of that occurred when Newt Gingrich led Congress in the mid-to-late '90s. I'm not justifying every financial move they made back then, but, despite losing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by only one Senate vote, they still committed to spending caps and balancing the budget, which they did for four consecutive years for the first time since the 1920s.

The Congress of the 1990s steadied and strengthened the economy by following four priorities and principles, which, fascinating to note, are being turned on their heads at this moment by the present administration. As Newt noted in his excellent book, "Real Change," Congress' top priorities were to:

1. Cut taxes to increase economic growth and therefore increase revenues (unlike Obama's tax hikes, which will retard economic growth and depress revenues);
2. Set priorities, and increase spending in key areas while reducing it in nonessential areas (unlike Obama's fiscal priorities of "healthcare, energy and education," which are based not upon what is best for the economy, but what is reflective of typical partisan preferences and doing what is politically expedient);

3. Eliminate pork-barrel spending (unlike the 9,000 earmarks in the present $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which is nothing short of absolute economic ludicrousness, mismanagement and waste within our present crisis.);

4. Shift from expensive, wasteful systems to smarter spending; don't merely look at more inexpensive ways but productive ones too (unlike Obama's theory to spend our way to prosperity, which is sure way to sink America.)

Our government is hemorrhaging money. The nanny state is becoming the norm. Our founders are rolling in their graves. And at this very moment, Washington's credit-crazy and debt-accumulating addiction is dissolving our sovereignty like a sugar cube in coffee by handing our financial autonomy over to the power of other nations.

In other words, Rome is burning, and Caesar is stoking the fire!

Time is running out, but it's not too late to reverse Washington's fiscal frenzy. Don't just write, but hound your representatives to live and legislate by the preceding four proven priorities and principles of governmental and monetary prudence.

Related special offers:

Discover how America can be reawakened with Chuck Norris' "Black Belt Patriotism."

Learn what lies beneath Obama's well-polished rhetoric. Get "The Audacity of Deceit" on sale today!

"The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes will Doom the Economy – if we let it Happen"

"Trading Away Our Future"

"Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work"

"Moment of Truth: How Our Government's Addiction to Spending and Power Will Destroy Everything that Makes America Great"

Comment by National Deregulation Consultant Agency Of North America on February 19, 2009 at 2:44pm

I need the Army in South Texas! This is a critical point in the economy but that dose not mean mean that Corpus Christi TX needs a Coal Plant when it is adding to 6 current reffing falsities. We need all to get involved to help change focus to a renewable Plant. To ensure Local Jobs forever. Corpus Christi was listed in USA Today in December on Toxic levels in the school district. The City is a player in is matter but did not attend or send a rep. to the case at City Hall.

www.ndcaenergy.com/community


http://www.caller.com/news/2009/feb/17/city-may-revisit-its-endorsement/?partner=RSS
http://www.kiiitv.com/news/37365344.html
http://www.kiiitv.com/news/39761252.html

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on February 5, 2009 at 1:54am

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on January 27, 2009 at 4:58am

Most underrated part of inauguration

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 26, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

I know inaugural news and commentary is already passé. But I could not find one news report or pundit this past week that caught what I believe was the most subtle, strategic and possibly subversive moment of the inauguration ceremony. Did you catch it?

Forget for a moment the parade of presidents sashaying down the Capitol steps. Forget U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts' blundering recitation of the oath of office. Forget that Obama's speech wasn't exactly the Lincoln memorial most expected. The two who subtly stole the show were the Protestant ministers who sandwiched the ceremony with their invocation and benediction.

Pre-inaugural chatter speculated what each of the ministers would say. Would the Rev. Rick Warren use the opportunity to pray against the maladies of abortion or homosexuality? Would he end his prayer in the nonpolitically correct and exclusive "in Jesus' name"? Would the Rev. Joseph Lowery resurrect a civil right spirit in his ecumenical prayer? Would he slide in a pro-gay comment within the final entreaty of the inauguration?

Rev. Lowery seems like a good man, and I have no doubt his prayer was heartfelt. And the closing rhymes to his petitions were funny and quaint. But I thought his racial wit was a bit out of place for an alleged unifying event that sought to tie the symmetry of Lincoln and Obama in a nice social bow. Nevertheless, Lowery's verbal cleverness earned him a rousing round of applause from the throngs, a standing ovation from the stage and an affirming smile and hug from the new president.

The reception for Pastor Warren was far less enthusiastic. He was welcomed to the podium by a murmuring and spattering of claps throughout the 2 million on the National Mall. And he ended with almost less fanfare and approbation from his onlookers. Even Obama seemed to respond with a mere token acknowledgment. That is one reason most news agencies and pundits barely brushed over the alleged insignificant nature of Warren's words.

U.S. News, for example, said that he "clearly opted for a conciliatory tone that eschewed any mention of culture-war issues." But Warren was hardly pacifying the elites or anyone else – if you truly understand what he prayed. The invocation seemed like a rather benign blessing that even his most ardent foes could have interpreted as inclusive. But the real portrait of his prayer was quite to the contrary.

Personally, I wasn't expecting any sort of controversial catechism from Warren. If he ended his prayer like Franklin Graham, who closed his invocation at Bush's 2001 inauguration "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" and was lambasted by the politically left for doing so, I would have been pleasantly surprised. Well, in my estimation, Rick Warren was Franklin Graham on spiritual steroids. He should win the clergy-of-the-year award for prayer creativity, cultural relativity and subtle subversive submissions.

First of all, Warren's prayer was nearly five minutes – about 486 words. He certainly didn't cower to typical audience intolerance for long prayers and opt for a short grace before meals.

Second, Warren embarks on what theologians call a Mars Hill (Greek) apologetic, which is a biblical approach and deductive line of reason that the Apostle Paul used in teaching about a Creator God, with whom all can at first identify. No God-fearing individual could object to Warren's wide appeal in the words:

Almighty God, our Father, everything we see, and everything we can't see, exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you, it all exists for your glory. History is your story.
Third, Warren then narrows his focus by identifying the Creator as the one true Hebrew (or Jewish) God of the Old Testament – something that sounds inclusive of Judaism but also serves as the basis and narrowing of his Christian logic. At the same time, he was culturally relative and sensitive to (but not necessarily endorsing of) Islam, by extolling God as "the compassionate and merciful one," a descriptive line that opens all but one chapter of the Koran. All of that is contained in his few words:

The Scripture tells us, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.
Fourth, Warren then covers the gamut in compassionate petitions: thanking God for racial freedom and equality, praying a blessing on Obama and his cabinet, asking God to help us all unite in freedom, forgive us of our presumption and pride and share and serve all humanity – not just ourselves or our own. Got you hooked yet? Now for the part that would have earned him nothing but jeers and disdain, were it not couched in those preceding four points.

Fifth, Warren turns on a dime by calling on God to help us remember this universal religious truth (in all Middle Eastern religions, I might add): that God will judge all nations and all peoples. Then, for clarity sake, the name of Warren's Supreme Judge is given. He refers to this transforming agent, who changed his own life, in four different languages: "I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life – Yeshua (Hebrew), Isa (Arabic), Jesus (English), Jesus (Spanish pronunciation) …"

Sixth and last, just when you think the "amen" is imminent, Warren gives a coup de grace to any political or earthly power – a possible subversive chess move to subtly call Obama's regime into checkmate. He called upon the global Christian community to invoke God's power against any and all human strongholds by collectively praying the Lord's Prayer. Warren rallies all branches, traditions and denominations of the universal church by triggering a prayer response through his words, "who taught us to pray saying …" Proof came as cameras immediately panned the Washington crowds, many of whom found themselves suddenly reciting the prayer with Warren. (It was interesting to watch how Obama chose not to publicly follow or join in.)

So why did Warren close his invocation with the Lord's Prayer? The simple answers could include it is universal, well known and both relatively inclusive of the majority and yet exclusive to the band of Jesus' loyalists. But the truth is the Lord's Prayer is no trite meaningless religious repetition to Warren. He once explained in one of his teachings, "'Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' Why do we pray that, 'Thy will be done as it is in heaven'? Because in heaven God's will is done perfectly. Is God's will done perfectly on earth? Absolutely not. In fact most of the things that happen on earth are not God's will. God's will is not always done. … But when you pray, 'Thy will be done,' you're saying first, I accept Your plan and [second] I surrender to God's control."

Reciting the Lord's Prayer is pleading with God to do nothing short of erecting His Kingdom and executing His desires on earth as they are in heaven. It is calling upon the one true God, asking for his nature to overrun ours, his wishes to be fulfilled (not ours) and his rule and reign to be established (not ours). On the flip side, it is the most "dangerous" prayer one can pray if one wants to continue to live selfishly, misuse power and maintain control over others.

The Lord's Prayer is, in reality, the most invasive and subversive prayer to human selfishness that one can say, able to breakdown strongholds within us, within others, and even within political structures. As Warren once said, praying the Lord's prayer is ideal "when your circumstances are uncontrollable, when people around you won't change (they're unchangeable), and when problems are unexplainable."

Now you tell me: Why would Warren, who thoroughly understands the Scriptures, pray that particular prayer at the transference of new political powers with whom he largely disagrees? The answer is obvious.

Like millions of others, I repeated this relatively short prayer in rote for most of my life, without thinking twice about its meaning. But then I learned about its powerful truths from my pastor, who teaches its principles and encourages its daily recitation through a simple acronym. (You can listen to his Lord's Prayer message series on his website at NationalTreasures.org.) The Lord's Prayer has revolutionized my prayers and my life, and I believe (as I know Warren does) it can change all of our lives, government and world, if we sincerely and regularly pray it. That's exactly why Warren's invocation included it.

For most, Warren was reinforcing his image as "a unifying, post-Christian-right figure rather than as a divisive culture warrior." But reality is, as Jesus called His Apostles to do, Warren was being as "shrewd as a serpent, and innocent as a dove." And most never even caught it.

Say what you will about this purpose-driven pastor, but, when you parse it out, Rev. Rick Warren's inaugural invocation was about as purpose-driven as prayers come.

Thanks
Chuck

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on January 26, 2009 at 9:56am

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on October 23, 2008 at 11:53am

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on October 23, 2008 at 9:51am

An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code
Dear Mr. President, Members of Congress, and Fellow Americans,
We, the undersigned business and university economists, welcome and applaud the ongoing
initiative to reform the federal tax code. We urge the President and the Congress to work
together in good faith to pass and sign into federal law H.R. 25 and S. 25, which together call
for:
• Eliminating all federal income taxes for individuals and corporations,
• Eliminating all federal payroll withholding taxes,
• Abolishing estate and capital gains taxes, and
• Repealing the 16th Amendment
We are not calling for elimination of federal taxation, which would be irresponsible and
undesirable. Nor does our endorsement call for reduced federal spending. The tax reform plan
we endorse is revenue neutral, collecting as much federal tax revenue as the current income tax
code, including payroll withholding taxes.
We are calling for elimination of federal income taxes and federal payroll withholding taxes.
We endorse replacing these costly, oppressively complex, and economically inefficient taxes
with a progressive national retail sales tax, such as the tax plan offered by H.R. 25 and S. 25 –
which is also known as the FairTax Plan. The FairTax Plan has been introduced in the 109th
Congress and had 54 co-sponsors in the 108th Congress.
If passed and signed into law, the FairTax Plan would:
• Enable workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits,
• Replace all federal income and payroll taxes with a simple, progressive, visible,
efficiently collected national retail sales tax, which would be levied on the final sale of
newly produced goods and services,
• Rebate to all households each month the federal sales tax they pay on basic necessities,
up to an independently determined level of spending (a.k.a., the poverty level, as
determined by the Department of Health and Human Services), which removes the
burden of federal taxation on the poor and makes the FairTax Plan as progressive as the
current tax code,
• Collect the national sales tax at the retail cash register, just as 45 states already do,
• Set a federal sales tax rate that is revenue neutral, thereby raising the same amount of tax
revenue as now raised by federal income taxes plus payroll withholding taxes,
• Continue Social Security and Medicare benefits as provided by law; only the means of
tax collection changes,
• Eliminate all filing of individual federal tax returns,
• Eliminate the IRS and all audits of individual taxpayers; only audits of retailers would be
needed, greatly reducing the cost of enforcing the federal tax code,
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-2-
• Allow states the option of collecting the national retail sales tax, in return for a fee, along
with their state and local sales taxes,
• Collect federal sales tax from every retail consumer in the country, whether citizen or
undocumented alien, which will enlarge the federal tax base,
• Collect federal sales tax on all consumption spending on new final goods and services,
whether the dollars used to finance the spending are generated legally, illegally, or in the
huge “underground economy,”
• Dramatically reduce federal tax compliance costs paid by businesses, which are now
embedded and hidden in retail prices, placing U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in world
markets,
• Bring greater accountability and visibility to federal tax collection,
• Attract foreign equity investment to the United States, as well as encourage U.S. firms to
locate new capital projects in the United States that might otherwise go abroad, and
• Not tax spending for education, since H.R. 25 and S. 25 define expenditure on education
to be investment, not consumption, which will make education about half as expensive
for American families as it is now.
The current U.S. income tax code is widely regarded by just about everyone as unfair,
complex, wasteful, confusing, and costly. Businesses and other organizations spend more than
six billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code. Estimated compliance costs
conservatively top $225 billion annually – costs that are ultimately embedded in retail prices paid
by consumers.
The Internal Revenue Code cannot simply be “fixed,” which is amply demonstrated by more
than 35 years of attempted tax code reform, each round resulting in yet more complexity and
unrelenting, page-after-page, mind-numbing verbiage (now exceeding 54,000 pages containing
more than 2.8 million words).
Our nation’s current income tax alters business decisions in ways that limit growth in
productivity. The federal income tax also alters saving and investment decisions of households,
which dramatically reduces the economy’s potential for growth and job creation.
Payroll withholding taxes are regressive, hitting hardest those least able to pay. Simply
stated, the complexity and frequently changing rules of the federal income tax code make our
country less competitive in the global economy and rob the nation of its full potential for growth
and job creation.
In summary, the economic benefits of the FairTax Plan are compelling. The FairTax Plan
eliminates the tax bias against work, saving, and investment, which would lead to higher rates of
economic growth, faster growth in productivity, more jobs, lower interest rates, and a higher
standard of living for the American people.
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-3-
The America proposed by the FairTax Plan would feature:
• no federal income taxes,
• no payroll taxes,
• no self-employment taxes,
• no capital gains taxes,
• no gift or estate taxes,
• no alternative minimum taxes,
• no corporate taxes,
• no payroll withholding,
• no taxes on Social Security benefits or pension benefits,
• no personal tax forms,
• no personal or business income tax record keeping, and
• no personal income tax filing whatsoever.
No Internal Revenue Service; no April 15th; all gone, forever.
We believe that many Americans will favor the FairTax Plan proposed by H.R. 25 and S. 25,
although some may say, “it simply can’t be done.” Many said the same thing to the grassroots
progressives who won women the right to vote, to those who made collective bargaining a reality
for union members, and to the Freedom Riders who made civil rights a reality in America.
We urge Congress not to abandon the FairTax Plan simply because it will be difficult to face
the objections of entrenched special interest groups – groups who now benefit from the
complexity and tax preferences of the status quo. The comparative advantage and benefits
offered by the FairTax Plan to the vast majority of Americans is simply too high a cost to pay.
Therefore, we the undersigned professional and university economists, endorse a progressive
national retail sales tax plan, as provided by the FairTax Plan. We urge Congress to make H.R.
25 and S. 25 federal law, and then to work swiftly to repeal the 16th Amendment.
Respectfully,
Donald L. Alexander
Professor of Economics
Western Michigan University
Wayne Angell
Angell Economics
Jim Araji
Professor of Agricultural
Economics
University of Idaho
Ray Ball
Graduate School of Business
University of Chicago
Roger J. Beck
Professor Emeritus
Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale
John J. Bethune
Kennedy Chair of Free
Enterprise
Barton College
David M. Brasington
Louisiana State University
Jack A. Chambless
Professor of Economics
Valencia College
Christopher K. Coombs
Louisiana State University
William J. Corcoran, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska at
Omaha
Eleanor D. Craig
Economics Department
University of Delaware
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-4-
Susan Dadres, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Southern Methodist University
Henry Demmert
Santa Clara University
Arthur De Vany
Professor Emeritus
Economics and Mathematical
Behavioral Sciences
University of California, Irvine
Pradeep Dubey
Leading Professor
Center for Game Theory
Dept. of Economics
SUNY at Stony Brook
Demissew Diro Ejara
William Paterson University of
New Jersey
Patricia J. Euzent
Department of Economics
University of Central Florida
John A. Flanders
Professor of Business and
Economics
Central Methodist University
Richard H. Fosberg, Ph.D.
William Paterson University
Gary L. French, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President
Nathan Associates Inc.
Professor James Frew
Economics Department
Willamette University
K. K. Fung
University of Memphis
Satya J. Gabriel, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
Mount Holyoke College
Dave Garthoff
Summit College
The University of Akron
Ronald D. Gilbert
Associate Professor of
Economics
Texas Tech University
Philip E. Graves
Department of Economics
University of Colorado
Bettina Bien Greaves, Retired
Foundation for Economic
Education
John Greenhut, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Finance & Business Economics
School of Global Management
and Leadership
Arizona State University
Darrin V. Gulla
Dept. of Economics
University of Georgia
Jon Halvorson
Assistant Professor of
Economics
Indiana University of
Pennsylvania
Reza G. Hamzaee, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics &
Applied Decision Sciences
Department of Economics
Missouri Western State College
James M. Hvidding
Professor of Economics
Kutztown University
F. Jerry Ingram, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
The University of Louisiana-
Monroe
Drew Johnson
Fellow
Davenport Institute for Public
Policy
Pepperdine University
Steven J. Jordan
Visiting Assistant Professor
Virginia Tech
Department of Economics
Richard E. Just
University of Maryland
Dr. Michael S. Kaylen
Associate Professor
University of Missouri
David L. Kendall
Professor of Economics and
Finance
University of Virginia's College
at Wise
Peter M. Kerr
Professor of Economics
Southeast Missouri State
University
Miles Spencer Kimball
Professor of Economics
University of Michigan
James V. Koch
Department of Economics
Old Dominion University
Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Professor of Economics
Boston University
Edward J. López
Assistant Professor
University of North Texas
Franklin Lopez
Tulane University
Salvador Lopez
University of West Georgia
Yuri N. Maltsev, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
Carthage College
Glenn MacDonald
John M. Olin Distinguished
Professor of Economics and
Strategy
Washington University in St.
Louis
Dr. John Merrifield,
Professor of Economics
University of Texas-San
Antonio
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-5-
Dr. Matt Metzgar
Mount Union College
Carlisle Moody
Department of Economics
College of William and Mary
Andrew P. Morriss
Galen J. Roush Professor of
Business Law & Regulation
Case Western Reserve
University School of Law
Timothy Perri
Department of Economics
Appalachian State University
Mark J. Perry
School of Management and
Department of Economics
University of Michigan-Flint
Timothy Peterson
Assistant Professor
Economics and Management
Department
Gustavus Adolphus College
Ben Pierce
Central Missouri State
University
Michael K. Pippenger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of
Economics
University of Alaska
Robert Piron
Professor of Economics
Oberlin College
Mattias Polborn
Department of Economics
University of Illinois
Joseph S. Pomykala, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Towson University
Barry Popkin
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Steven W. Rick
Lecturer, University of
Wisconsin
Senior Economist, Credit Union
National Association
Paul H. Rubin
Samuel Candler Dobbs
Professor of Economics & Law
Department of Economics
Emory Univeristy
John Ruggiero
University of Dayton
Michael K. Salemi
Bowman and Gordon Gray
Professor of Economics
University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
Dr. Carole E. Scott
Richards College of Business
State University of West
Georgia
Carlos Seiglie
Dept. of Economics
Rutgers University
John Semmens
Economist
Phoenix College
Arizona
Alan C. Shapiro
Ivadelle and Theodore Johnson
Professor of Banking and
Finance
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern
California
Dr. Stephen Shmanske
Professor of Economics
California State University,
Hayward
James F. Smith
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Vernon L. Smith
Economist
W. James Smith
Dean of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Professor of
Economics
University of Colorado at
Denver
John C. Soper
Boler School of Business
John Carroll University
Roger Spencer
Professor of Economics
Trinity University
Daniel A. Sumner, Director,
University of California
Agricultural Issues Center
and the Frank H. Buck, Jr.,
Chair Professor,
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics,
University of California, Davis
Curtis R. Taylor
Professor of Economics and
Business
Duke University
Robert Vigil
Analysis Group, Inc.
John H. Wicks, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
University of Montana
F. Scott Wilson, Ph.D.
Canisius College
Mokhlis Y. Zaki
Professor of Economics
Emeritus
Northern Michigan Universit

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on October 20, 2008 at 3:11am

Hey Friends Ck out this video Tell me what you think Good or Bad I will listen

Comment by George Wayne Pruett on October 8, 2008 at 6:23pm

Have all our polititions gone crazy
After watching the debate last night,I have concluded that our polititians just do NOT get it.Billions to bail out financial institutions and not a word about the REAL economy.Most of our manufacturing jobs going to China,out-sourcing even white collar jobs,dependence on foreign oil,our entire economy going down the tube.Personally,I will NOT vote for any emcumbent for federal office.THROW ALL THE LYING,CHEATING BUMS OUT !!!

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last