Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Economic Crisis 2008 - Call To Action

In the previous post (below) I provide a simplified version of what happened to the Stock Markets and Financial Industry. The reason everyone needs to understand this now is because the same thing is happening in governments. In order to stave off the problems this has brought to the markets, and thereby every major company that relies on these markets, governments are incurring large debts with no thought of their future ability to pay.

Pretend that you have credit card and car loan balances totaling $50,000. Also pretend that your house is worth $200,000, and you only owe $100,000. As long as you are paying your bills, you are a good credit rating and can get credit if you need it. You know you can refinance your house, if necessary, for money to pay off your obligations. But, what happens to you if the value of your home drops to $100,000? Now your ability to pay is reduced through no fault of your own, even if your income is the same.

Let's assume that you don't currently rely on debt for the day to day business of your home. But, if your car breaks down or you have a non-routine medical expense you no longer have the ability to get the cash you need to meet your obligations. You can ask your boss for a raise, but this minor increase in your income cannot help you to pay off the large obligations that are dragging down your credit rating. With this new obligation, your ability to pay your other existing obligations is further diminished. Due to your diminished ability to pay, your credit cards are closed by the banks and your interest rate goes up. You no longer have access to any funds other than the income from your job. As long as your income holds, and you don't have any unplanned expenses, you may be able to hold on. But, consider that the change has affected many others. This could easily impact your employer, and your income.

Now, simply assume that you are the government. It works exactly the same. When the ability of your government to acquire capital is reduced, all of the existing debt becomes a greater burden. The government can raise taxes, but there is not enough money in the system to pay off the debt enough to improve our credit rating. It will have to reduce its expenses. Not only that, in a recession, overall income is reduced. This means that less tax money will be collected, even if the rate is increased.

Every person in America needs to reduce their expenses now. You can stop spending on discretionary purchases and obligations (cell phones, cable, etc) while it is still an option. You cannot stop spending on debt. You don't want that to be all that you can afford. Everybody needs to speak up so that Congress and The Fed stop spending money while it is still discretionary. They will refuse to listen until a large section of the electorate speaks out.

Economic Crisis 2008 - Explained

Feel free to correct me where I am wrong, but here is my understanding of the complex contributors to our current economic crisis. Clearly, no single person or group is to blame. It is the culmination of poor accounting practices and unsound policies in several markets working together. Do not think for a minute that it is somehow not the "1929 Stock Market Collapse" for our time.

The fundamental unit for the current crisis is the housing market. The housing bubble allowed homes to be purchased for much more than their "real" value. The money that was lent on these homes was indisputably provided by the lenders and received by the seller. Where this money was spent is entirely at the discretion of those that received it, even if they are greedy capitalists. Unfortunately, much of this money was invested back into the overpriced and overstocked real estate market.

The multiplier for the crisis is the financial instrument called the Credit Default Swap. Let's make a comparison using common, household situations like Life Insurance. When Skip is raising his children, he takes out a Life Insurance policy for $1 Million. This is important because his children are directly benefiting from his salary, leadership, and housework. This is covered by the insurance company because they are investing his payments into the markets for returns that will cover their outstanding policies.

The first risk they take is when they start wagering that Skip is healthy enough that he will live until the policy has expired (if Term Life) or is fully funded by Skip (if Whole Life). The benefit of this wager is to lower premiums and thereby bring in additional business. By itself, this risk is usually well-calculated, but still can result in the failure of an insurance company. As a simple example, a large group of healthy wage-earners could suddenly be impacted by a natural disaster, bankrupting the insurance company. The remedy for this is to insure people across various geographical locations.

The second risk is when the insurance company decides it can continue to sell life insurance to Skip's children when they start earning their own money. There is no longer a need for Skip's income and help. There is merely a desire for payout on Skip's death. Originally it was accepted in order to cover the costs of burial or cremation. But, it has grown to where it is wholly discretionary. In our example, Skip's 3 children each take out a $1M policy on Skip. Now the Insurance company has grown, due to the ability to offer more payouts. If we only look at the boom to the industry, without acknowledging the increased risk then we increase the likelihood of unforeseen, and thereby catastrophic, failure. Let's assume now that we have one-fourth of the people affected by the aforementioned natural disaster. The payout is the same as before, if there are now 4 policies on each person. We have increased our risk by 4, but not increased our premiums to accommodate that risk. More likely, we have decreased the premiums further because we have increased our income by doing so.

The third risk adds another multiplier. Investors, watching the growth in the insurance company, decide to invest directly into the company. Bear in mind that insurance companies rely on the markets to store and grow their income. Premiums paid by the policy holder are minor compared to the income earned through investments. These premiums are critical, mostly as an indicator of the health of the company. Now the investment company makes money when the insurance company makes money. The only risk to the system is the death of a lot of healthy people, like Skip. But, we have spread that risk across geographies and income levels.

Now we see what really happened. Instead of insuring Skip against death, we are insuring Skip's mortgage against foreclosure. When the housing bubble burst, many homes were lost. More importantly, the rating of the lenders and insurance companies were reduced. Once this happened, their ability to invest and be invested in was reduced. With a reduced income stream, some of these companies failed or were in danger of failing. The investment companies that had invested in these companies now had to be downgraded also.

Remember Skip's children in the original example? They are still there. Multiple policies were issued against the mortgage companies ability to pay. When one group started to have trouble, it rippled across many others. There was no oversight or regulation on the insuring of loans, investments, and the companies that engaged in it. Until we hit this crisis, it was unclear how extensive this practice was or the impact it could have. In addition, it is far removed from most people so it was not a priority when some people called attention to it.

Next Post: Why EVERYONE needs to know this NOW!

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Obama's Destructive Change

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops, because it will definitely NOT be covered by the Mainstream Media. Barack Obama was one of a group of lawyers that sued Citibank for not giving loans to prospective homebuyers that could not afford them. This puts Barack Obama on the front line in the war to destroy our economy.

Not only that, but Barack and his friends are still working to take government funds for these groups, like ACORN. What is even worse, these groups are being used to campaign for Barack Obama. That means they are using general government funds, earmarked for assisting the poor, to benefit a particular candidate. If this is not a violation of Campaign laws, it is only because the Democrats have made sure that it doesn't come up for consideration.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Obama's Closest Friends

Are you voting for Obama, expecting change from insider politics and greed? If so, you will be sorely disappointed. Here is a quick rundown of Obama's well known friends:

Jeremiah Wright - Militant black preacher
Connection: Married the Obamas and baptized their children. Longtime friend and Spiritual Advisor.
Issues: Hate speech against whites and America. Supports militant Muslim leaders such as Louis Farrakhan.

Tony Rezko - Businessman, Lawyer
Connection: Business Associate. First political contributor to Obama and first fundraiser. Fellow Real Estate investor.
Issues: Fraudulent business practices (wire fraud, passing bad checks, extortion, et al). Influence peddling (using influence with public officials to demand kickbacks from companies desiring to do business with the government).

William Ayers - Terrorist, Professor, Community Organizer
Connection: Friend, Fellow Board Member
Issues: Remorseless Terrorist Leader of the Weatherman Underground.

James Johnson - Businessman, Politician
Connection: VP selection committee leader
Issues: CEO of FannieMae, Managing Director of Lehman Brothers. Improperly deferred expenses to get a substantial bonus. Substantially underreported compensation. Received unethical loans from Countrywide CEO. In addition to his connections to the failed companies previously noted, his resume includes being failed candidate Walter Mondale's Campaign Manager. You may want to avoid investing in other companies where he sits on the board - KB Home, Target, Goldman-Sachs, Gannett, Temple-Inland, and UnitedHealth.

Rashid Khalidi - Professor, Activist, Founder of Arab American Action Network
Connection: Friend to the Obamas, AAAN received $75000
Issues: Openly espouses the viewpoint that Palestinians are within their rights to terrorize Israeli soldiers and citizens because he considers it resistance fighting.

Obama established most of these friendships during his early days in Chicago Politics. All of these people have maintained these relationships as they're careers have progressed over two decades. All of these people have stated they support Obama specifically because he thinks like they do.

Friday, August 29, 2008

McCain's Easy Rebuttal to Obama

McCain can easily hit back at some of the ridiculous assumptions and claims made by Barak Obama during his convention speech. Obama's entire speech hammered home that Americans, despite our remarkable history, are now unable to achieve the great heights achieved by our forefathers.

Americans today have even more opportunity and support to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. Leftists want to tell you that you are not entitled enough. Obama even claims you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps because you have no boots. Now, how could anybody in this country today be without boots? There are numerous, quality churches throughout this nation that help clothe the naked and feed the hungry, every day of the year. When people fall on hard times, neighbors and friends are there with a helping hand. It is only when people look to these handouts as their source of income do they begin to dry up. This is where the government fails people. It does not have the ability to tell when the need is gone, yet the individual fails to take responsibility for their own existence. This is why welfare should not be a plank in any party's platform. It makes sense to offer short term assistance in unexpected or dire situations. It does not make sense to provide suckling to full grown adults.

Democrats want to measure progress by unemployment and savings rates. But, at the same time, they offer incentives for those who live beyond their income. They want to rescue you from your own decisions; leaving you no opportunity to learn and grow through a process of finding your own solutions. When you remove the consequences from people's actions, you will quickly find that the worst decisions will be the most oft repeated.

Barak Obama has numerous examples of where his forebears and others have fought the hard fight, and come out the victor. These people deserve every ounce of praise they receive. They deserve to have a child that can be a candidate for President of the United States. This is what they fought for. They do not deserve to have thier sacrifice belittled by claiming that it is not a worthwhile endeavor today. We should not stand idly by while we are told that we do not have the fortitude to be able to do as they did. We are not entitled to honor, bravery, strength, or courage. Nobody can bestow these admirable traits upon us. They can only be attained by working the long hours, making the hard decisions, and doing the thankless jobs.

Too many people are asking us to turn our lives over to someone else. They want employees of the government to make the decisions on how we will receive our health care. They want the government workers to decide what is the best course to pursue when it comes to Energy, Transportation, and Housing. They feel that a small group of centralized people can make a better decision than those who are closest to home and the everyday experiences that these decisions will impact. Americans need to consider the effectiveness of ANY single-provider system. When you limit your options to a single provider, the provider no longer has a motivation to provide quality service or affordable prices. Don't let them tell you that this will change. Health Care will become exactly like the electric company that brings power to your house. The only way to change your options will be to move away.

Taxes: Regardless of your feeling on whether tax reductions or tax increases will better fuel the economy, one thing cannot be disputed. Enacting an even greater tax disparity between what is considered rich and what is considered poor will only serve to keep the poor from ever becoming rich. The gap that will have to be overcome, for a middle income family to become a wealthy family, will be widened by the increase in taxes on the "rich". At that point, individuals and families will be faced with the very real possibility that a relatively minor increase in their income will drastically increase their tax burden.

Obama has big plans for our automotive and energy industries. But, how sound are these plans. I'll assume they are more complex than inflating tires and getting regular oil changes. But, how many freedoms do we have to give up for the gains they promise to deliver? Obama wants to put a stop to all decision making that does not fall right in line with his fairness doctrines. Insurance companies cannot discriminate against those who wish to be insured. He means that they will be required to pay for the treatment of ill or injured patients. But, it will also be discrimination if they fail to pay for drunk drivers, illicit drug users, and arsonists? Sen. Obama would like to build a society so full of safety nets that Americans will be entwined in a web of bureacracy at every turn.

Where will the money come from, to fund all of Sen. Obama's big plans? That is easy to answer. It will come directly from the corporations and individuals who are fueling the largest economy in the history of the world. There is no possible alternative economy plan to replace the dollars that will be taken from the personal investments, retirement savings, and research and development accounts. Billions of dollars have been already been poured into the promise of cheap solar energy for over 30 years. What guarantee do we have the Obama can deliver the breakthroughs in alternate energy that he intends to spend an additional 150 Billion Dollars for?

Change does NOT happen because we rise up and demand it. Change happens when we go to work and enact it. Our soldiers entered Afqhanistan and Iraq because we were not getting any results although the United States, alongside the United Nations, demanded change. Our soldiers stepped up to do the job that needed to be done, without demanding a lifetime of security for their service. We will only retain our freedom if we, too, go to work each day and show that we can do more with our personal freedoms than the government can do with its central planning.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Conserve our way out???

There are some obvious facts that the Pelosi types refuse to acknowledge. Americans, and the rest of the world, will continue to use oil. America is literally flooded with oil. And, nobody runs a larger, cleaner economy than the United States of America.

Conservation is a great idea. There is no reason to waste a resource. But, we use oil for more than just refining it into gasoline to put in passenger cars. When you consider jet fuel, diesel fuel for trucking, and cheap plastics, there is no viable alternative to oil. Alternatives may one day be developed, but they are still in their infancy, today.

America has huge deposits of oil, which are easy to tap. Centuries ago, oil seeping to the surface was a pollutant, with little practical use. We have turned this pollutant into a valuable resource. It has reshaped the political scene, providing power to states that have not earned the trust of their constituency. This is the strongest reason for keeping the government's hands out of the pockets of the oil companies. Governments that earn their own income have no need to listen to their citizens. The profits he gleans from the nationalized oil companies is how Hugo Chavez is able to remain in power, against the will of the Venezuelan people.

The only way to release ourselves, and our friends, from the tyranny of countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia is to produce our own oil. There is no reason we cannot. This independence in the energy arena will spill over to become strengths for our economy, political muscle, and our options for the future.

No other country should be granted the opportunity to capitalize on America's resources, over and above America's companies. American companies will be able to recover the oil more efficiently than any other country's. Americans will hold themselves to higher standards of ethics and environmental concern than other countries, because we will be the ones directly harmed by any accidents.

The oil is there for our use, and sitting on it just causes our economy and political strength to sink further down the pit that environmentalists have been digging over the last few centuries. America has the ability to quickly and cleanly return to a position of strength and leadership in a world that needs the shining light of Free Enterprise.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Thomas Jefferson fights against Big Government

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Voting Rights should be more restricted

I posted the letter below as a separate post, due to its length. In essence, John Adams explains the reasoning of the Founding Fathers in restricting the right to vote to adult male landowners.

While Kids Voting is commonplace now, it is still obvious that they do not have the knowledge and experience to make an informed decision.

It is easy to disagree with his statements regarding women, since it may be claimed that landowners can be similarly preoccupied with working to survive in the same way that women could be preoccupied with nurturing children. I don't think we should restrict the right of women to vote. But, it is interesting to note the number of women who demonstrate, or even publicly state, that they will vote however their husband or boyfriend tells them to. Obviously this does not apply to all women, and could apply to some men. It is simply more prevalent in women.

While it may not be appropriate, at this point, to remove the right to vote from all who don't own real estate, it does make sense to require that they follow an additional process to gain the right to vote. If a person cannot show enough initiative to either acquire and maintain property or follow an established procedure to gain the right to vote, they will certainly not take the initiative to become informed on the issues. The mainstream media loves the "motor voter" type bills, because they control the prime source of information for those that don't do personal research. In an America that followed the understanding of the founding fathers, there would be a test to gain the right to vote, just as there is a test to gain the right to drive.

Alexander Hamilton 1775

[The classic argument for limiting voting rights to adult males who own property: so that voters are excluded who are dependent on the wills of others for their livelihood. — TGW]

[Hamilton is quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries, bk. 1, ch. 2:]

"If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other."

-- From http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com

John Adams to James Sullivan on women, the poor, and voting rights

May 26, 1776

[Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW]

It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?

But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule.

But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others?

Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own?

If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law?Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…

I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.

Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.

The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…

Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.

Obama Gaffes and Flip-Flops

I decided it is time to start capturing, in one place, the elitist and offensive statements made by Barak Obama, in his run to be the President of the most powerful nation on earth. Due to his woeful inexperience, I expect this list to grow as he is forced to state a platform and stick to it.

"I don't want her punished with a baby."
"typical white person"
"clinging to their guns and religion"

Unequivocally Pull Troops from Iraq
Public Funding for political campaigns
No Washington Insiders pulling the strings

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Big Win for Congress - Finally

Good news out of Washington - Republicans found their backbone and blocked passage of the Windfall Profits bill. According to the Associated Press,*
The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.

There are so many things wrong with this, that I will limit myself to the few most obvious items. Who determines "unreasonable" profits? Where, and how, is it determined that this tax revenue will be used to reduce the costs to the consumer? It is a medieval mindset that profits are evil. The modern economist recognizes that the reward of high profits draws more creativity, ingenuity, and participants into the marketplace. This decreases the profit per company, spurs innovation, decreases risk, and benefits consumers much more than government intervention. The contrary claim could be that oil is a finite resource, so additional participants will deplete the supply more quickly. But, supply does not drive demand. In contrast, you will have more companies with a vested interest in prolonging the supply or finding viable alternatives.

While it is clear that this will give more power to government, and make price-gouging a federal crime, what proof is there that this will benefit consumers? What power does the government have to limit oil speculation? The only thing that tempers rampant speculation is a clear signal that it has gone beyond the pale. For the recent housing speculation bust, the signal came when the volume of buyers was far outpaced by the number of sellers. It is difficult to tell how this signal will manifest itself with oil speculation. There are many more players, no geographic restrictions, and the ability to 'buy in' with a much lower risk. The plans to increase supply by bringing more wells and petroleum technologies online appears to be the most likely trigger to stop speculation. Attempts to use alternative sources like wind, solar, or geothermal sources have not been shown to be applicable on a large enough scale to make an impact.

Apparently a hint is given as to where the money taken from the oil companies will be spent, by pursuing antitrust actions against OPEC countries. But, there is no evidence that OPEC is responsible for the spike in prices. All this will do is anger countries with whom we already have tenuous relations. If we truly believed that this action was necessary, we would not wait to tax windfall profits before pursuing this course of action.

The peak of ignorance in the article* is the statement: "But there was nothing to lose by taking on Big Oil when people are paying $60 to $100 to fill up their gas tanks." To say something so blatantly false illuminates the fact that the writer, Josef Hebert, refuses to even consider the alternatives or unintended consequences.

Democrats are already spinning this as another loss to the Oil Companies and to the Republicans who they claim are firmly in their pocket. However, the people pushing this bill are the ones who bear the burden of proof, which they have never satisfied. They are the ones attempting to convict without a fair trial. This was clear last month, when they call the Oil Executives in to their Kangaroo Court to berate and belittle them, while never actually seeking an understanding of the situation.

* http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Ashamed, Lying, or Just Timid

Why is it that Barack Hussein Obama is unable to look directly at the camera?

Just the musings of a "Typical White Person", who has been "punished with a baby" more than once.

Monday, May 5, 2008

Why Liberal Media Pushes for Higher Oil Prices

I noticed this a few years ago. The Liberal Media and the leaders of the Democratic Party have been taking actions that will cause the price of oil to continue its upward trend. The Associated Press continued to print stories that gas would skyrocket during the summer of 2006, although gas prices had leveled off and subsequently dropped by 20 cents. The Democratic Congress has avoided doing anything positive about the energy crisis, except to point fingers at the President for not fixing the problem. They have made the prices of everything else rise through the use of farm subsidies under the guise of increasing the fuel supply. Al Gore has exacerbated the problem by making unprovable, outrageous claims of mass upheaval and tragedy.

I recently had a conversation with a college science professor that is in the minority of academia today. He has actually applied the scientific method to Global Warming and the Energy Crisis, and tested the numerous hypothesis with sound methods and unbiased reason. What he has noticed provides insight into the observations I have noted.

The Socialists, and Progressives, are turning the tables on America. Americans destabilized the Soviet Union by driving gas prices so low that Soviets couldn't earn enough money to sustain their government. Now the Socialists are driving the prices up to destabilize our economy. Venezuela is a major world oil supplier, and notice how they have cozied up with Russia and Iran recently.

The advantage for the Progressives is to drive people back into the cities, to be closer to the things they need, in order to save on gas expenses. This also forces them to be ever more dependent on the government to ensure they have the food, clean water, health care, housing, and transportation. This puts the leaders in Government in control - in direct contrast to the desires of the framers of the Constitution.

Another tactic they are using is to continually interject "Higher Prices" and "Inflation" into every story. This directly benefits Socialists in America who want to control everything we buy and everything we do. If prices continue to rise, Americans will accept "price controls". In order to maintain price controls, the government will have to control production. This is where they sweep in and "Nationalize" industries that used to be controlled by Free Enterprise under the guise of defending the ability of people to afford the food they need.

The Democrat-controlled Congress has already made overtures towards the energy companies, and "seizing profits". This is not very far removed from Venezuela that recently nationalized its oil companies. In so doing, they now provide cheap energy "for the good of the people". All that the people of Venezuela had to give up was their input into who leads their country.

The answer is to allow private companies to increase the supply in America and with our allies. But, the Progressives in the U.S. are working against Americans when they drive energy companies out of business, do not allow the opening of new or capped wells, sour relations with our oil-producing allies, and drive up operating costs with unvalidated regulations. The mainstream media outlets constantly refer to "Big Oil" and "Record Profits" to cast them as the bad guy. But, there are many larger companies in America, and their profits usually dwarf the profits of "Big Oil".

Free enterprise can solve our energy crisis, if the Democrats controlling Congress would allow them the freedom to do so. Think about what you are giving up when you let the Government solve your problems.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Raila Odinga - Who is he to the U.S.?

It has been reported, by non-US news outlets, that Barak Obama has a cousin in Kenya by the name of Raila Odinga. Regardless of the veracity of the genealogical linkage, there is a definite bond between the two, as they acknowledge publicly that they speak regularly.

The reason this is concerning, is due to the hard line that Odinga takes on his religion. Atheists, agnostics, liberals, and progressives fight against the use of the name of God in the Pledge, on our currency, and in the public forum while offering a hand of conciliation to Islam. Odinga expresses the views of other Muslim leaders when he states that other religions and non-religious people will be welcome in Kenya, if he is the President. However, they will only be accepted as second-class citizens, beholden to the Muslims for approval before doing anything. This website reports the following quote showing Odinga's stance on the matter.

While freedom of worship will be upheld ... the Council of Islamic leaders shall be permitted to have an oversight role to monitor the activities of ALL other religions and any applications for religious activities and institutions will require their approval. They shall have the right to deny approval to cults and other evil practices.”

Article (v) a) of a Memorandum of Understanding,
signed in Kenya on 29th August 2007,
between Raila Odinga and the National Muslim Leaders Forum.

Don't think that only your freedom of religion will be abridged, if not completely rescinded, under a presidency that panders to Islam. According to this website 3 of Odinga's campaign promises are to implement Islamic Law as follows:

b) Within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions.

c) With immediate effect dismiss the Commissioner of Police who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists to oppress the Kenyan Muslim community.

g) Within one year facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters.

And, in direct comparison to Barak Obama, Raila Odinga claims he is a Christian; more specifically a "practicing Anglican". Further evidences of Obama's compassion towards a group that, more often than not, wants to rid the world of the freedoms that America has spread throughout the world wherever possible, you can look here.

From 'The Audacity Of Hope, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

From The Audacity Of Hope, "We are no longer just a Christian nation," "We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."


From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."

From 'Dreams of My Father',
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"

From Dreams Of My Father, "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself..".

From Dreams Of My Father:
"That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, blaming "white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."

From Dreams Of My Father;
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on,to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"

I want a president that is unencumbered with ties to Islamists, as this group desires to dismantle the freedoms that have made America the greatest nation in the history of Earth. I want a president that does not have racial prejudices for or against people of any skin color or ethnic origin. I want a president who has the concerns of the nation at heart, above the desires of a particular minority group, a foreign nation, or even their personal aggrandizement.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Presidential Planning

Instead of prematurely planning their legacy, the candidates for President of the United States should be planning for 4 years of difficult work. What should really concern anyone who desires to be President, are the issues they must be willing to deal with in the next 4-8 years. Social issues inside the country continue to fester. The economy will not be friendly. Foreign nations like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and Palestine will not be easy to confront. Other foreign nations will provide an opportunity for new friendships, if handled appropriately.

The country continues to struggle to define abortion, marriage, and what is acceptable in the public sector. Some people would allow abortion even beyond delivery while others would like to ban it outright. Some states have already passed amendments to disallow homosexual marriage where others would allow it. Some cities would choose to allow open sexual activity while most others would prosecute this as sexual deviancy. With increased mobility and the expanded public domain, by use of the internet, these issues will test the separation of powers between local, state, and federal government.

The economy will be the most pressing issue for the next President. We have seen the top 2 financial institutions in America take significant write-downs on earnings in the last few months. The largest sub-prime lender in America had to sell itself at a discount to avoid bankruptcy and dissolution. Thankfully, another financial company was willing to absorb their portfolio, instead of dropping a huge debt on the already over-taxed government. Wholesale prices have risen dramatically, which is no surprise since the price of oil has also been climbing. In addition to the increased cost to the transportation process, it also increases costs for power production. This comes at a time when there is already talk of energy shortages and forced conversion to less efficient 'green' energy.

We are making progress in the Middle East like we have not seen in centuries. This is due to American willingness to sacrifice in the short term to produce long-term gains in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is vital that we do not allow the price that has already been paid to be discounted or discarded. The next President to understand this, and to continue to advance the cause of freedom throughout the Middle East. The advancement of liberty is critical for reinforcing those in Iran who are already seeking these same freedoms but face overcoming oppressive traditions. America must also continue to show a strong and brave face, along with an open hand of conciliation, to countries that make aggressive overtures toward the United States. At the same time, there are opportunities for expanded peace and freedoms in regions of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and South America. This will require diligent diplomacy.

This is a time where we can see clear challenges ahead. It is not a time for choosing your racehorse based on their colorings, gender, or adornment. The best bet is on the entrant with the proven track record and the stamina to complete the race.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Big Government

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. -Thomas Jefferson

The quote contains truth that goes even deeper than the fears Jefferson lived with. His concern was for the populace that would give up their freedom in exchange for a soft, easy life. The most obvious victims of Big Government are the thousands of people who are living on funds that are doled out by the government. When the government cannot make its payments, there will be too few charitable outlets to provide for the people who have allowed their ability to sustain themselves to atrophy.

What we face today is a government that has a crumbling foundation, and is large enough to crush nearly every person in the United States and many outside of it. We must cut off the funds that are being siphoned off for ridiculous earmarks and non-vital programs. If the federal government is unable to remain solvent, it will not matter how much money you have in your investment accounts, how much gold you have on hand, your list of assets, or your deeds on properties. If the government cannot make payroll, there will be no police force to defend your liberties, no judges to adjudicate your property disputes, no fiscal or fire department to safeguard your assets, and no military to defend against radicals.

Whatever other considerations you give this election year, consider the financial situation we face today when selecting a candidate. It is well past time to make the sacrifices that will bring a little pain today, but may avoid the wall of pain that is at the doorstep if they continue to be ignored.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Tax Release or Tax Relief

Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee have been throwing around the idea of eliminating the IRS. While this sounds like a wonderful idea, it is a pandering lie that is misleading at best.

One easily noted reason that the IRS will not be disbanded is because it employs 115,000 people across the United States. Even if half of these people were given duties under an alternate system, it would still send over 50,000 Americans into the ranks of the unemployed. Not only will it have politicians haggling over negative job growth, it will put a large strain on the economy to have this many people dumped into the unemployment lines at one time. The money we save in IRS salaries will be absorbed by the additional benefits to be paid to the ex-employees.

The other point to consider is that Congress is the one who decides how taxes are collected and disbursed. Congress benefits greatly under the current system. Since World War II, the House and Senate have worked on increasing their salaries and perks, not on improving the tax system for the good of the citizenry.

A much more effective approach is to seek changes to the general budgetary and financing process. Sadly, it needs to be noted that every government program costs money. Thus, the more programs we can eliminate, the more tax burden we can avoid. The tax codes can be greatly simplified. It should not require an accountant to determine your reasonable share of the national tax.

Simply requiring accountability for every government program and reducing the complexity of the tax codes would allow the IRS to downsize through attrition and free up the money that is currently wasted on bureaucracy.