Frank Lynch hereby calls upon President Barack Obama to make it illegal to wear burkas in America.

We must immediately stop issuing drivers licenses, passports, immigration papers of any sort, or any government identification or registration instruments to any person who even partially covers their face.

Further, under the hate crime laws, it should be a felony punishable by five years imprisonment at hard labor to refuse to shake hands because a person is a woman.

It is time for our government to stop all this ridiculous political correctness of not wanting to offend muslims. We must grow a spine and stand up to extremists. All people are equal, and we cannot and must not tolerate any practices that demean women in any way.

I am disappointed in our President that European countries are taking action to recognize the sanctity of womanhood before our own President does.

President Obama, please exercise leadership in banning the burka, banning the refusal to shake hands with women, and all other extremist traditions that demean women.

Further, all non-profits must be required to ban burkas from their officers, employees, Boards of Directors or Trustees.

Eveery educational institution, from preschool through graduate school, must ban burkas from their premises.

President Nicolas Sarkozydeclared Monday that the Islamic burqa is not welcome in France, branding the face-covering, body-length gown as a symbol of subservience that suppresses women's identities and turns them into "prisoners behind a screen."

But there was a mixed message in the tough words: an admission that the country's long-held principle of ethnic assimilation -- which insists that newcomers shed their traditions and adapt to French culture -- is failing because it doesn't give immigrants and their French-born children a fair chance.

In a high-profile speech to lawmakers in the historic chateau at Versailles, Sarkozy said the head-to-toe Muslim body coverings were in disaccord with French values -- some of the strongest language against burqas from a European leader at a time when some Western officials have been seeking to ease tensions with the Muslim world.

"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause of the lawmakers gathered where French kings once held court.

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement -- I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

The Netherlands is about to ban burkas. The country's hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman's face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes.

Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the "time of cosy tea-drinking" with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other.

She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman. Great lady!

Although Netherlands has the same inane freedom of expression laws passed in America, she plans to make it a matter of public safety.

Prosecutions in torture cases should go forward. The proponents of this policy are still at it and saying we are less safe because of it. Not only that, but we can not go forward in the eyes of the world until we take responsibility for our actions.

By letting prosecutions go forward we can prove that are laws are upheld and begin to quiet the supporter of such policies. This proof would be especially clear if a court of law were to find the suspects guilty.

I haven't said anything about Dick Cheney up to now, but I feel I need to. He was one of the main driving forces of all Bush's failed policies and I believe his view of presidential powers is reflective of a king's. If we give the president unfettered power don't we set up a situation where our country is not really free? I think Cheney is not stupid, yet I feel is either completely misguided, insane, or perhaps he even doesn't truly believe in what our forefathers fought for.

Mr. Dick Cheney, I know terrorism is a bad and scary thing, but I will never give up my freedom just to be safe. I would rather die in a terrorist attack for once we lose our freedom and give a president sole authority (becomes king) then we lose. In my eyes, for all the power you have, you are paranoid and sad. I wouldn't trade places with you for anything. Regardless of what you think history will not look kindly on you, rather, it will be one of the darkest periods of the United States.

You had your chance sir… so sit down and be quiet.

Who's to blame? The banks. Did consumers get bigger loans than they could afford? In some cases, Yes, but not all.

The banks were given bailout money to cover the bad debt, but they didn't use it for that. They spent it buying up smaller banks among other things. The decision makers of the banks who decided not to cover the debt should be put in prison in my opinion and those banks should get no more money.

If anything, the money used in any bailout should go towards specific failed mortgages. If people end up having their morgages covered with taxpayer money, then maybe there should be some penalty tax they should incur that is spread out over time.

Let's face it - we either:

1. Give the banks money (which we already did) and trust them with it and they get a free ride.

2. Give aid to people with loans in, or about to go in, default. This may or may not help the individual.

3. Gather up all the bad debt and apply enough money directly to each mortgage in an amount that would keep banks solvent and no more. This would require spreading the amount over all loans, or those that meet specific criteria.

4. Let them all fail. Are we really prepared for this? For people who get scared of socialism, this could be a catalyst for it depending on the results. As long as we can prevent the same actions that caused the current crisis from happening again maybe a one-time bailout is not so bad.

So far it doesn't seem like the banks have paid a price for their failed lending practices (failed to us, not for them). But homeowners and taxpayers will end up footing the bill. I tend to opt for #3, but will accept #2 rather than nothing.

The republicans need to keep in mind that their numbers reflect the value of their voice and should be weighted as such. Bipartisanship at this time does not mean 50/50.

This is a DEMOCRACY and the people spoke in November and the republicans should not be able to think they can drive policy!!!

I hate to say this and I feel I'm becoming a little extreme, but I think we must engage strongly with the far right and almost put them out of their misery. They ideas and philosophies created this huge mess and they don't want to do anything to fix it. They are too inflexible and are not willing to be part of the solution.

Alan Keyes and Rick Santorum are crazy. The republicans presided over the biggest expansion of executive powers where the White House was above the law and answered to no one. Yet, they are calling Obama a communist. They should prosicute all those in the former administration that are guilty of crimes or it sets a bad presidence.

Has everyone seen those garbage posts? I wish they would do something to block them. They should have profile ID's so they could be reported, but apparently that isn't a requirement when creating an account.

I happen to click one of the links and the site tried to install a trojan virus on my pc. I wish they could track the IP's to those people and block/bust them.

I've been sending emails to to the admin. I'm sure he gets a lot of email though. I hope the site is still being taken seriously after the election. We have a lot to do.

This is complete politcal posturing. Now they can say they were against the bill, decline the money, but their states get the money anyway.

Very disingenuous. The republicans don’t care about their country… they care about their own money and power.

I would Like Newt Gingrich to explain exactly lowering capital gains taxes stimulates the economy. The typical answer is that it gives businesses money to hire employees. This is completely false and too simplistic.

1. Who is earning capital gains now? Wealthy individuals and corporations with investment portfolios. Individuals are not going to hire people. Companies that are actually making money on capital gains with the current state of the market would not be pulling money out just to hire people. There needs to be a business need to hire people. If you aren't selling you product or service why hire people when you keep making money in the market?

2. Lowering a tax on capital gains only works if there actually are capital gains to recognize. I would think that after the market lost half its value over the last year there aren't going to be that many companies experiencing huge capital gains to benefit from. And again, if they are seeing those returns, why risk it creating jobs unless there is a business need?

3. As stated earlier, the only reason to hire is because there is a business need. If the core business is not doing well, or has no need, it does not have any reason to hire simply because it made more money on investments from capital gains that are taxed lower.

The only way to truly stimulate the economy now is to create jobs, even if short term, through government projects, tax cuts for the lower/middle class, mortgage aid, etc. Longer term economic goals will require a different approach.

I don’t see how this is that hard to get. In a growing market this would make more sense as there are ready consumers ready to spend (although I would need to examine this idea more thoroughly). During an economic contraction, when the consumer pool is shrinking and confidence is low, hiring "just because you can" doesn’t make sense as there is no one willing to purchase your goods and services.

If there is really a reason that lowering capital gains taxes creates jobs, I would like a more in-depth explanation as to how.

I would Like Newt Gingrich to explain exactly lowering capital gains taxes stimulates the economy. The typical answer is that it gives businesses money to hire employees. This is completely false and too simplistic.

1. Who is earning capital gains now? Wealthy individuals and corporations with investment portfolios. Individuals are not going to hire people. Companies that are actually making money on capital gains with the current state of the market would not be pulling money out just to hire people. There needs to be a business need to hire people. If you aren't selling you product or service why hire people when you keep making money in the market?

2. Lowering a tax on capital gains only works if there actually are capital gains to recognize. I would think that after the market lost half its value over the last year there aren't going to be that many companies experiencing huge capital gains to benefit from. And again, if they are seeing those returns, why risk it creating jobs unless there is a business need?

3. As stated earlier, the only reason to hire is because there is a business need. If the core business is not doing well, or has no need, it does not have any reason to hire simply because it made more money on investments from capital gains that are taxed lower.

The only way to truly stimulate the economy now is to create jobs, even if short term, through government projects, tax cuts for the lower/middle class, mortgage aid, etc. Longer term economic goals will require a different approach.

I don’t see how this is that hard to get. In a growing market this would make more sense as there are ready consumers ready to spend (although I would need to examine this idea more thoroughly). During an economic contraction, when the consumer pool is shrinking and confidence is low, hiring "just because you can" doesn’t make sense as there is no one willing to purchase your goods and services.

If there is really a reason that lowering capital gains taxes creates jobs, I would like a more in-depth explanation as to how.

I heard Joe Scarborough on MSNBC today arguing for Trickle down economics" No! It doesn’t work!

We need to think in these terms:

It seems analogous to the question - Why does a tropical rain forest exist? Is it because the plant life and growth generates climate that produces rainfall, or is it because the area already experiences a high level of rainfall? (Believe it or not I had this debate with someone). The correct answer in this case would be that the tropical forest exists because it experiences a high level of annual rainfall.

Similarly, the question becomes - What produces a strong economy? Is it a strong upper class with generous tax cuts that creates jobs, or a strong consumer base that generates sales and a need for jobs?

1. Which income level generates most of the spending that raises GDP? The lower and middle classes. Consumers buy, companies sell, experience growth and employ more people.

2. When do companies close doors and experience layoffs? When sales go down and consumer spending decreases.

People who live day-to-day will be more likely to spend the money they receive. People earning money on capital gains will be less likely to spend the money and most of the money gained by tax cuts will not be spent immediately.

Finally, tax cuts for the wealthy are not going to bring back the lost jobs because any tax cuts received by them would not be used to pump up failing businesses (many of those tax breaks would just be for wealthy individuals, not businesses). It will not make lower and middle income consumers spend more money. That is not how business planning works. The economy is held up (imagine a triangle) by the CONSUMER base, not by a strong upper class with generous tax cuts.

So... we need to stimulate consumer spending.

So during the election campaign when Obama said he would actually give tax cuts the Republicans said he wouldn't be be able to do it with such a large debt (this is after they tried to say he was going to raise taxes). They said it would be fiscally irresponsible.

Now, when the economy is in even worse shape, they are holding up this stimulus package and trying to push more tax cuts into the bill (which the dems gave into for a compromise). It seems they can't keep their arguments straight. Just whatever argument seems to win at the time to gain political points.

The Republicans have been simply playing politics since the presidential races. With the selection of Sarah Palin as a VP pick and the recent selection of Michael Steele as the first Black chairman of the RNC it has become obvious that the only problem the Republicans are taking serious is the lack of luster of the party itself. Now all they can do is try to divide the country over this stimulus package and make it hard for the Democrats to do anything productive after they helped get us to this point.

Obama has been giving them chances, but their immaturity makes them act like children. Let's face it, there will never be a perfect bill, but we need to make this happen. A sign of unity would go along way to help the economy as well - if just to boost consumer confidence. The divisiveness is getting us nowhere.

I hope Obama can find a way to get this passed without a filibuster. At this point he should probably not worry so much about pleasing both parties, especially as there are not many moderate Republicans left.

I notice there has been a reduction in posts after the election. I am guilty of not posting myself. I do hope we all stay involved. Obama got in, but we need him to succeed.

Many struggles will come in the next couple of months, but we will persevere. Our president will need all the help he can get. our country will need all the help it can get. And yes say a prayer for the republicans too. May they see the error of their ways and may they search their hearts and find the truth that we are doing the best thing for this country and them.

Bless you all
-Micheal

Well, the argument for it is millions of jobs will go under. You will lose the largest manufacturing unit in the United States, the heart and soul of American manufacturing. R&D goes with it. Technology goes with it. Engineering goes with it.

And more important, the auto industry has an enormous future in this world. Americans, we buy, in a good year, 17 million cars. China, India, all these countries are opening up. People are moving into the middle class. They're going to want cars. You will carve the United States out of much of the future. But in terms of viability, what's killed General Motors, and the others, is they have dropped the greatest, highest-paid guys who give the most in taxes, the cleanest, safest factories, and dropped them into global competition against factories in places like China, whose managers would be in a penitentiary if they were doing in the United States what they're allowed to do over there.

We are Americans. Why would you buy a car from a foreign country that hires Americans at a third of what American auto makers pay and all the profits go overseas? That, in and of itself, is un-American.

The Big 3 were instrumental in our winning of WW2. Were it not for GM and Ford converting to make military trucks, jeeps, and other components of the American war machine, we may be all speaking German or Japanese right now. And quite frankly, if we keep "whoring" ourselves out with the trade deficit the way we have been; we may end up speaking Japanese or Mandarin yet.

The time has come to stand up and say no more to our manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas. No more to foreign countries driving down the American standard of living. No more to foreign companies having influence over our elected officials. No damn more! Did Congress ask the AIG executives how they got to Washington? Did they ask Lehman Bros., Bank of America, or anybody else?

Stop selling out your fellow Americans. Look for the Union Label. Look for the Made in America labels. When you walk into a store, ask where the American made products are. Stay the hell out of Wal-Mart. We are Americans and it's high time we remember that. Buy American. At least 3 million of your fellow citizens, and quite possibly the economic future of this country, are depending on you.