July 4 Tea Parties Shift Emphasis From Awareness to Action

03 WWII Widow  Back in February of this year, barely a month into the Obama presidency, the Tea Party Movement was born after a rant on the Chicago Board of Trade by CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli calling for a “second Tea Party” as a response to the Bailout Stimulus bill Obama had just signed.

Immediately conservatives took to their blogs, Facebook and Twitter, and email to hastily arrange the February 27 Tea Parties.
 
It was a cathartic event.  There was finally an outlet for the pent-up rage that many were feeling over the sudden leftward lurch our nation had taken.

In St Louis, organizers initially expected 50 to 100 “activists” to show up and were excited to have a couple hundred confirmed attendees on the event page on Facebook. They never imagined or dared to hope for numbers exceeding 1200, but at least that many people of like mind turned out on that cool day under the Arch.

Not much attention was paid to the tea parties. At least, there was little publicly acknowledged attention. President Obama later claimed to have been completely unaware of the Tea Parties, though few take that statement at face value.

Still, Tea Party Organizers knew they had done 2 momentous things. They had created a tremor in Washington, even if it was only a 3 on the Richter Scale; and they had awakened the “sleeping giant” of American Conservatism. The “Fools on the Hill” had generated so much angst and ire amongst the normally “Silent Majority” that folks who ordinarily would do little more than hurl expletives at their televisions now were motivated to take a page from the Left’s playbook… and take to the streets. The “Sleeping Giant” was awake and was becoming aware.

The 2nd major set of Tea Parties was held on Tax Day; April 15. This time, the numbers swelled thanks to the buzz created by the first Tea Parties. In St Louis, Keiner Plaza downtown was filled to overflowing – with a crowd exceeding 10,000 motivated patriots.

The April 15 Tea Parties showed the movement could no longer be ignored by the administration. So they set out to minimize, ridicule, belittle and do all they could to discredit, defang or emasculate the Tea Party movement. Awareness was spreading. Conservatives were becoming informed, yes… but also the Administration, the Congress, and their lapdogs in Media were also becoming aware – aware that there were a lot of angry and informed people out there who were going to hold their feet to the fire and demand accountability.

But while protesting with signs and speeches which preach to the choir is great for the above purposes, going forward it will serve little purpose to simply turn out crowds with signs (no matter how clever) if protest is not accompanied by action. This was the theme of the Independence Day Tea Parties. To answer that question, “What do we do NOW?”

In any popular movement, it is only effective as long as it remains a grassroots effort. Looking to “them” to do all the heavy lifting will inevitably lead to the collapse of the effort under its own weight. That burden must be “redistributed”!

Each person of like mind must become educated, not only in the facts - but in tactics and processes by which they PERSONALLY can respond. No army puts its generals on the front line leading a charge, while the troops remain in the barracks watching TV and cheering them on when they are on the news! While senior staff creates policy and establishes strategies, the real work is done by the enlisted soldier, directed by a non-comm.

For the movement to continue to have “legs”, each person must become an individual activist. This does not mean counting on the elected minority to move their agenda forward. We cannot on the voice of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and the rest to be the lone voices in the wilderness, leading the way all the way to the promised land!  Not even leaving the work to the organizers of Tea Parties or other such protests.  Each individual must take the personal responsibility to make their OWN voice heard.

The message that came out of the July 4th Tea Parties – Become equipped and engage the battle!

The individual Activist must first become informed. There are numerous resources ranging from Fox News and Talk Radio to Blogs and Social Networking where reliable information can be obtained apart from the Mainstream Media.

An informed patriot must know how to effectively translate that information into action. Most importantly, they must communicate their ideas, their frustrations, their anger and their praises to their elected officials. They must do so clearly, frequently, and in such a manner as to put them on notice that they are being scrutinized and will be held accountable come election time.

They can gather with the likeminded – not just to enjoy the social enjoyment of gathering with birds of a feather – but to share with one another. To share information. To share resources like websites, books and publications, relevant TV and Radio programming etc. To share strategies and analysis of what has and hasn’t been effective. To share “war stories’ both for amusement and for “lessons learned”. To move initiative petitions along.

Making a difference and affecting “change” will take much commitment of Patriots who are willing to engage the process at the risk of “lives, fortunes and sacred honor”. But not to do so means allowing the ever-expanding and increasingly demanding hydra of government to direct our lives, confiscate our fortunes, and discredit our honor. We must never stand idly by and permit the rise of totalitarianism, socialism, or despotism or tyranny without at least standing up in opposition.

After the constitutional convention, Ben Franklin was approached and asked what type government they had given the people. His reply: A republic – IF YOU CAN KEEP IT. Are you ready, willing and able to commit yourself to this cause?

How can you get started?

1) VOTE!! Not just once every 4 years but EVERY TIME the polls are open, whether for the presidential election or for school board or zoning proposals!

2) Get informed. Avail yourself of the available resourses. New Media and Technology. Networking with others of like mind.

3) Get ACTIVE. Call, write, email, fax and visit your elected officials. Pester them till they know your name! Give them a piece of your mind. Make sure they know they’re being watched, and will be held accountable. Write letters to the editor. Post to blogs. Let people KNOW what is on your mind.

4) EVANGELIZE! Grow the movement by encouraging others to join it! That means being prepared to explain what is wrong, why it’s wrong, and what you are doing about it. If you can get someone to understand what’s happening and how it will affect them, you’re half way to changing their mind!

5) BECOME a resource! Share your knowledge. Share your experiences. Provide money and materials where you can.

Remember, only you can prevent the nation from going up in smoke!

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/

Tax Day "Tea Parties" - What was THAT?

Don't Tax Me Bro

April 15 is a date that has meaning to most everyone.  “Tax Day”.  Or more correctly, the deadline by which Income Tax filing is due each year.

 

But this year it also took on a new significance.  April 15 was the day that ordinary, common Americans took to the streets to give voice to their displeasure with massive unrestrained spending, insane bailouts, trillion dollar deficits for a decade, confiscatory taxation, unprecedented growth in the size and scope of government, and the march of socialism and wealth transfer.

 

Over 550,000 people turned out at one of hundreds of “Tea Parties” staged in all 50 states.  Approximately one out of every 500 human beings in the nation attended such a protest.  This is hardly an insignificant event, notwithstanding the Mainstream Media’s reports to the contrary.

 

The Left-Loving media first sought to marginalize the Tea Party movement, calling the participants “Fringe Elements”.  Then they sought to mischaracterize them as Partisan Tools of the GOP.  Some went so far as to compare them to Nazis.  And in the final days preceding the event – a report from Homeland Security was released, intended to instill fear that attending such a protest put one at risk of being “watched” as a potential “Domestic Terrorist”!  (Particularly egregious in that DHS report was the implication that returning veterans represented a potential threat.  I personally find it fascinating that while we Conservatives HONOR our returning vets, the powers that be FEAR them!) 

 

If any were deterred… there were over half a million UN-Deterred Americans who turned out to boldly proclaim their opposition to policies which they deem harmful to our republic.

 

As I wrote in my “Primer on the Tea Parties”, these protests were NOT partisan, despite the best efforts of Michael Steele and the RNC to potiticize them.  It was almost amusing how the GOP came back burned when they were publicly rebuffed by the ACTUAL organizers.

 

Michael Steele attempted to co-opt the movement in a fund-raising effort for the GOP.  He received STINGING rebukes from organizers.

 

Numerous GOP elected officials sought a stage to speak at the Tea Parties.  Organizers refused, explaining that the event was NOT partisan and they wished to prevent its being politicized.

 

In St Louis, it was mentioned by one of the organizers that some elected officials ARGUED that they should be given a platform.  But once denied, they didn’t make an appearance!  In fact the only elected official that showed up was Congressman Todd Akin, who never asked to take the stage.  He was there simply to lend his PERSONAL support to the effort! 

 

No, the Tax Day Tea Party movement is NOT organized by the GOP, by Dick Armey & Freedomworks, by Don Wildmon and the American Family Association, by the Constitution Party, by the National Socialists, or any other group.  Taking inspiration from Santelli’s Chicago Board of Trade rant, several bloggers started the movement via Facebook and Twitter!

 

In St Louis, local blogger, Bill Hennessy contacted blogger, vlogger and local radio personality Dana Loesch following the Santelli Rant about throwing together an ad-hoc “Tea Party” protest.  Out went postings on Twitter and Facebook.  A Facebook event page was posted.  The event was planned for the St Louis Riverfront 5 days later on February 27.

 

Hennessy and Loesch initially anticipated a turnout of 50 or so committed individuals.  They were THRILLED when the Facebook Event Page listed over 250 confirmed attendees the day before the event.  But even they were ASTOUNDED when the turnout for the day topped 1200 under the Arch in St Louis!  It was the biggest “Tea Party” protest in the nation on that day.

 

They new they had a movement started, that couldn’t stop there.  Dana Loesch  of danaradio.com became one of the National Organizers for the April 15 “Tax Day Tea Party”.  Along with Michael Patrick Leahy of tcotreport.com, Eric Odom of dontgomovement.com, along with a few other blogger types, the planning began for the April 15 Nationwide Event.

 

They established an event page on Facebook, and along with their own Twitter and Facebook pages, their personal emails, and finally a website, www.taxdayteaparty.com.

 

Hundreds of motivated grassroots people around the country organized their own local events, coordinating thru the Facebook, Twitter and taxdayteaparty.com websites.  It was a TRUE GRASSROOTS effort.

 

The issues cut across party lines.  There were Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Constitution Party members, Democrats and more all participating with a common purpose:  To express to Washington that they have HAD IT with the unbridled tax and spend policies, growth of government’s size and intrusion, and the threat to our rights and liberties that such a bloated government represents.

 

St Louisan Scott Ransom commented after the party:  We were "there," and wow, what an awesome crowd, right down to a person. There were some pierced-up Lefties standing right with me, and when I thanked them for being there, I swear one of them started to cry. She was SHOCKED. Fabulous gathering...wanna do it again like now.”

 

Media coverage of the Tea Parties was largely dismissive.  The media and those in Washington dismiss this movement at their peril.  It is strong.  It is committed.  It cuts across the political spectrum.  It is not going away.  In fact, it will probably grow larger and more powerful by the time the next Tea Parties come around.  Yes, there will be more!  Get ready for the LIBERTY Tea Parties on July 4!

 

 

Copyright © 2009 by

Doug Edelman

A Primer on the Tax Day Tea Parties

Perhaps you have seen or heard about CNBC's Rick Santelli and his report from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, where he called for a "Taxpayer Tea Party" in the wake of efforts to enact a new, multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded housing bailout.

Across America, millions stood up and cheered. Rick was expressing what so many have been feeling now for a long time, when it comes to out-of-control spending on the backs of hardworking U.S. taxpayers to reward the irresponsible and the corrupt: "Enough is enough!"

In St Louis, Bill Hennessy was inspired after Santelli’s rant. He contacted local Blogger/Vlogger/Radio Host Dana Loesch, and the two of them decided to organize a Tea Party at the Riverfront in St Louis.

There were phone calls, emails and some social networking activity... and 5 days later we had us a party!

Organizers originally expected maybe a turnout of 50... were THRILLED when facebook group grew to a couple of hundred confirmed attendees the day before, and were ASTOUNDED when actual attendance ultimately well exceeded 1000!

Linking up with Michael Patrick Leahy of TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) and Eric Odom of the Don't Go Movement... Hennessy and Loesch then began planning the St Louis effort for the Nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Parties. Utilizing Twitter, Facebook, email and the occasional phone call, the movement has grown to over 300,000 participants in over 300 cities!  It has a national website, www.taxdayteaparty.com.

The media has portrayed the Tea Party movement in a number of erroneous and defamatory ways. Some say they're run by the Republicans. Others say it's run by this political organization or that talk show host. In St Louis, the Tea Parties were even equated with NAZIs in the Riverfront Times! So, why don't we take a moment to clarify: What exactly IS the Tea Party Movement and what ISN'T it?

The Tea Party Movement is a non-partisan, grassroots assemblage of INDIVIDUAL Citizen Patriot Voters, who are fed up with (and who are standing up in opposition to) unrestrained runaway spending, confiscatory taxation, irresponsible bailouts and unconstitutional actions of any kind by anyone, regardless of their political affiliations. This is not a partisan effort, and EVERYONE – regardless of the letter after their name – will feel their opposition if they go along with the bailouts, the stimulus, increased tax-and-spend policies, and the unrestrained growth of government.

Contrary to some reports in the media, the Tea Parties are a grass-roots effort, planned and coordinated locally by concerned individuals and loosely associated thru social networking and other technologies. This movement is NOT a part of the Republican Party. It is NOT associated with any nationally known political or media figures.

While a number of national names and organizations have recently taken note of the Tea Party movement and have lent their support, their encouragement, or their endorsement of the Tea Party Movement… they are NOT the leaders, organizers, strategizers or planners of ANY of the Tea Parties. Some national names are even trying to capitalize on the broad appeal of the Tea Party movement by seeming riding the coattails of the movement for their own agrandizement!

So, why Tea Parties? What is hoped to accomplish? What good will they do?

In a recent posting to the Tea Party participants, Eric Odom of www.dontgomovement.com summarized:

"We are under no delusion that we’re going to suddenly change the world on April 15th. We do, however, understand that the original Boston Tea Party Protest only had a few hundred participants and set the movement on a path to ultimate victory against the King of England.

Back then, it wasn’t nationally known celebrities or officials calling for change. It was everyday business owners and taxpayers meeting in pubs, networking and putting together a collaborative strategy.

On April 15th, hundreds of thousands of Americans will gather in more than 360 cities across all 50 states to proclaim their lack of confidence in our Government.

Besides gathering together to show our numbers and proclaim our message, “We the People” will shake hands, network, share ideas, discuss our frustrations, let out some steam, and begin to develop new coalitions and citizen groups.

April 15th will be Historic, NOT because we instantly changed the world, but because we set in motion a machine that will offer some counterbalance to our out of control Government and eventually put it back in the hands of the people.

If you’re one of those who likes to sit around and ask “what good does it do to go to a silly Tax Day Tea Party?” Let me follow that question with a question…

What good are you doing by staying home?"

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Liberals Provide More Proof They Abhor the Constitution!

There it is, in black and white, in Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution:

 

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

 

Therefore any legislative attempt to confiscate AIG Bonuses violates the constitution!!

 

Those bonuses were written into contractual obligation to AIG long before the bailout.  To NOT honor those contractual obligations would have placed AIG in legal jeopardy.

 

Dodd knew about the bonuses when he WROTE the bailout legislation which REQUIRED AIG to honor its contracts.  Maybe he WANTED it to become an issue later?  He received more campaign contributions from AIG than anyone else!!  He benefited when AIG benefitted - and now he hopes to benefit politically from bashing them!  Obama and Geithner knew about the bonuses weeks ago.  They let the story leak so they could feign outrage.

 

The bonuses are a drop in the bucket compared to the $3.2 trillion budget, or even compared to the billions given to AIG!

 

It seems we need to educate people about "Big Numbers".

 

It takes 1000 Million to make ONE BILLION.  GM is losing One Billion Dollars a Day.  (AIG paid out a couple million in bonuses).

 

The Iraq War cost $87 Billion for a year in 2004.

 

It takes 1000 BILLION to make a TRILLION.  A Trillion is ONE MILLION MILLION!

 

The Libs have blown thru over 3 TRILLION DOLLARS in less than 3 months.... But a few million in AIG Bonuses are front page news!

 

Where is the outrage over the millions in bonuses paid to Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and the others who BROUGHT THE FINANCIAL HOUSE OF CARDS DOWN?

 

Obama accepted $101,000 bonus from AIG for his campaign last year.

 

But now, by fomenting populist anger at AIG bonuses, he's pulling conservatives over to the "tax them to death" Socialist team.  DON'T FALL FOR IT!.  It's fascism, plain and simple.

 

If they can tax bonuses at 90 percent, they can tax YOU at 90 percent.

 

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.”

 

Failure IS an option in a free, capitalist republic.  (Too bad we're not one anymore!)  We should never have passed the bailout in the first place, and must repeal it.  Once Government has it's hand in private enterprise... it will try to RUN it.  (And we all know how well government runs ANYTHING!)

 

from:   http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm 


Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature."  U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted.  A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.  Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment."  William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils.  They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."  James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Nation's Largest "Tea Party" Protest Held Under St Louis Arch

100_0756

Dick Armey recently sent out a modest newsletter:

“Last week you may have seen or perhaps heard about CNBC's Rick Santelli and his report from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, ground zero for American capitalism and free market commerce, where he called for a "Taxpayer Tea Party" in the wake of efforts to enact a new, multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded housing bailout.

If you are like me, you stood up and cheered.

Rick was channeling what so many limited government advocates have been feeling now for a long time when it comes to out-of-control spending on the backs of hardworking U.S. taxpayers to reward the irresponsible and the corrupt: enough is enough!”

 

And with that, Freedomworks (http://freedomworks.org)  called for grass roots protests against the massive spending stimuli across the nation.

 

Bill Hennessy of the St. Louis area was similarly inspired by Santelli.  Hennessy contacted local blogger and radio personality, Dana Loesch (www.danaradio.com) and the two of them set off to organize the St Louis Tea Party at the Riverfront. 

 

Utilizing the latest in technology – Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as emails, word spread amongst the St Louis conservative community.  Ms Loesch was even approached by a local TV station for an interview the night before the event.

 

All this began on Monday, February 23, for an event which took place Friday February 28.  Organizers were hopeful for a turnout of 50 to 100 people, and were extremely encouraged when they had over 200 confirmed attendees on their Facebook event page Thursday night.

 

But even they were flabbergasted when the crowd grew to over 1000 people; excited, energized, and motivated!

 

The majority of those attending took time off work – long lunches or days off – to attend.  Many commented that they’d never participated in a protest demonstration before.  Said one participant, “Usually, it’s the Liberals protest when the government doesn’t do what they want.  Conservatives go to work, take care of their families, and if they’re REALLY motivated, they email their Congressman.  This time the stakes are so high we must resort to protests in the streets!”

 

Notable signs included one held by a college student stating she works 2 jobs to pay her own way thru college, and another held by a youngster asking “Does this mean I can overspend my allowance?”

 

Drivers passing by honked their horns in support of the demonstrators.

 

After short remarks by several dignitaries, the crowd descended the levee to the Mississippi River, where they symbolically dumped tea into the river.  A Coast Guard Patrol Boat stood watch a short way off shore, in all likelihood a safety precaution against anyone falling in the water.  A few announcements were made to the effect that only LOOSE tea should be thrown into the river, lest the Coast Guard cite the protesters for an environmental violation for throwing paper tea bags into the water!

 

The event galvanized the conservative population of St Louis, whether they were able to attend the event or not.  Similar protests are planned in the future, with Tax Day, April 15, being floated as a possible protest date.

 

Whether this “Tea Party” movement has legs, or is simply a vent of frustration by a decimated and impotent conservative constituency remains to be seen… but at this juncture, this is a force that the powers that be will have to reckon with.

 

Copyright © 2009 by

Doug Edelman

Hail & Farewell to the Chief - Final Thoughts on the Bush Presidency

 

While there are many things about George W. Bush that I disagree with, they all relate to his FAILURE to BE a CONSERVATIVE!!

 

From Immigration to Harriet Meiers to Dubai Ports to the bailout and profligate spending, Bush has abandoned Conservative principles on numerous occasions, and THIS is responsible for his approval ratings falling below 38%.  There are not more liberal thinkers out there; there are large numbers of conservatives who were disenchanted with Bush's swerves to the left that brought his numbers down.

 

With that said, George W. Bush has accomplished a couple of positive things.  The tax cuts DID what they always do... They stimulated the economy and increased revenues.  Bush inherited a recession, and the events of 9/11 could have tanked the economy - and the tax cuts averted that.

 

Unfortunately he was not so successful averting the economic effects of the sub-prime housing market since the red flag of Fannie and Freddie was waved in 2004 by REPUBLICANS and efforts to get a handle on the problem were resisted by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc.  These DEMOCRATS who CAUSED the problem are the same ones who claim to be in charge of FIXING it!  The problem began with the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter, and was magnified under Clinton as there was more pressure brought to bear to make more loans to less qualified people!   But BUSH is catching the blame again!

 

Bush has had his share of faults and foibles.  No doubt.  But the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the left is unfounded.  Bush was the object of hate from the left ever since the 2000 election, and they never got over it.  He was blamed for everything that ever went wrong in this country for 8 years.

 

Look at Katrina!  The problem in New Orleans was the result of Nagin's failure to implement his own disaster plan, and the RESISTANCE by Gov Blanco to PERMIT feds INTO the state to help (ever hear of Posse Commitatus?)  It was only after Bush threatened her with implementation of the INSURRECTION ACT to allow federal troops to cross into LA did she relent and PERMIT Federal assistance!

 

After the storm passed, FEMA took a lot of heat... But remember that FEMA was not set up as a First-Responder agency!  The first responders in New Orleans were PARTICIPATING in the looting!!

 

FEMA is the "Federal Emergency Management Agency".  They are supposed to come into a disaster area AFTER the fact, and help by organizing and financing the cleanup.  They are a coordinating agency set up to work with local officials.  The breakdown in New Orleans was the local officials.  Funding for levy upgrades etc had been misappropriated by New Orleans politicians for generations!  Nagin, Blanco, Landreau were the problem - but Bush caught the heat.

 

But what about Iraq?

 

Let's see.  In 1991 we established a CEASE-FIRE - with provisions that Iraq failed to keep.  After 17 UN resolutions against Iraq which they also failed to keep, resumption of hostilities was justified on that very basis alone.

 

There has been much made of the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, but the entire world had the same intelligence and Saddam himself DESIRED to foster the notion that he possessed them as it made his neighbors fearful to mess with him.  He never believed we would invade because he had the French and Russians and a lot of Germans in his pocket due to corruption in the Oil for Food program.  He thought they could restrain the US.

 

Regime change in Iraq had long been the policy of the US - including the administration of liberal hero, Bill Clinton.

 

What is rarely discussed in the Iraq issue is the strategic importance of Iraq - and we're not talking about a war for oil.  Iraq is a buffer between Iran and more moderate states.  Iraq borders Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria.  A functioning secular democracy in that region would stabilize the middle east.  A laudable goal.  Afghanistan, Pakistan and other potential hotspots are a short hop from Iraq, and again, a de-radicalized Iraq would stabilize the region.

 

The initial handling of the post-combat insurgency was poorly administered.  Granted.  But there are errors in ANY military action.  Over 1000 men were lost in a single failed training exercise in WWII!!  Considering the loss of over 50,000 soldiers, mostly draftees, in Vietnam - Iraq has been a very low casualty action and every one a volunteer.  Not that the loss of any soldier can be minimized or is any less a tragedy, however the casualties in the pursuit of a mission which ultimately IS in the best interests of the United States cannot be called a waste.

 

Since the Surge and the installation of Petraeus as commander, our tactics changed and the general Iraqi populace became more secure, and came to trust our forces.  Their popular support turned toward us and away from the radicals.  They began providing more actionable intelligence.  Their police and security forces began to become trained and efficient forces capable to assuming more responsibility for their own security.  Free elections were held.  The fledgeling Iraqi government is becoming more self sufficient.  A Jeffersonian Democracy? No, but a constitutional republic has been established and is functioning.

 

While a couple years ago, Harry Reid was declaring the war LOST and demanding a CUT AND RUN... Bush held on, adjusted tactics, and has overseen a subsequent success to the point the a realistic withdrawal of troops can be contemplated due to the successful completion of the mission!

Unfortunately, Americans have become impatient, spoiled children - expecting instant gratification with little effort or cost, and they are shortsighted accepting short term satisfaction over long term gains.  Wars are not supposed to have casualties, setbacks or last more than 100 hours!  If there is resistance and goals cannot be accomplished within a year, the cause is lost and not worth pursuing!

 

Thankfully, George W Bush did not concede to these thoughts.  And now we stand on the verge of true victory in Iraq.

 

Bush lied?  BULL!  He REPORTED the same intelligence the rest of the world believed.  He was willing to act on it in defense of our nation's interests.

 

Bush was waging a war for oil?  Bull! If that was so we'd be CONFISCATING it now!  We're not!

 

Bush was just in it for his cronies?  (ie Halliburton)?  BULL!  The Dubai Ports deal came about because there are only a couple entities CAPABLE of handling the ports concession.  Halliburton was one of them.  Bush was trying NOT to give it to them!!

 

History will sort it all out.  Bush will be judged neither as a success nor a failure.  He did good.  He made mistakes.  He had failings.  But I can still name a number of stronger contenders for "worst President ever" than Bush.  Carter, Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur, come to mind right off the top of my head.  Carter facilitated the radical Islamic resurgence.  He presided over double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and double digit unemployment.  And Liberals say Bush is worse?

 

And so, the Bush era ends in a few weeks.  Barack Obama ascends to the Presidency swept in on a wave of discontent with the current administration and  ethnic identity pride.  Good luck to him.  He'll need it.  Meantime, Hail and Farewell to the Chief, George W. Bush.  For all his successes and failures; for all his controversies and stubbornness; he was our 43rd President. 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2008 by

Doug Edelman

 

An Open Letter to the Electors of the Electoral College

Despite the failure of several lawsuits to get a hearing of the facts in the courts, there remain questions about Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States under Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution.  Only a "Natural Born" Citizen may serve in that office.

 

On his website Obama finally acknowledged that at one time he held dual citizenship between the US and Kenya.  This in and of itself could be argued to be a disqualifier; as the point of the "natural born" clause in the Constitution was to avoid divided allegiances.  But if Obama was not born in the United States, he is indisputably ineligible to inherit "Natural Born" US Citizenship from his mother. His father was not a US Citizen, and his mother had not fulfilled the requirement to have lived 5 years in the US past the age of 14.  She was only 18 at the time of Obama's birth.  Therefore if he was born in Kenya, he is NOT a "Natural Born" US Citizen and is ineligible to serve.

 

Obama put forth only a "Certification of live birth" as evidence of eligibility; which is NOT A Birth Certificate! 

 

After months and months of unrequited requests, the Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated your eligibility (per the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section I) as a "Natural born citizen" to have Obama's name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America. 

 

Some have claimed the document is a forgery; however it is unlikely that the document is not a genuinely issued form from the State of HI…

 

However, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a "birth certificate".  What they supplied was actually a "Certification of Live Birth."  There is a major difference between a "birth certificate" and a "Certification of Live Birth." 

 

Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) - in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn't.  This part is important; - and it has nothing to do with tin foil hats.

 

According to the State of Hawaii's Department of Health, "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country."  (For citation purposes, please feel free to visit their site: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html ). 

 

The "Certificate of Live Birth" as provided by Mr. Obama, is in fact, a derivative of the "Amended certificates of birth" they site.  Why is that important?  Because of that second clause in the above citation.  While you may show citizenship via such a document, you do not necessarily prove "natural born" citizenship.  "Natural born citizenship" is what is required to be eligible to be considered for the Presidency, per the United States Constitution. 

 

The form that you posted wouldn't even be acceptable to make an application in Hawaii's Home Lands Program!  The STATE OF HAWAII that ISSUED the form won't accept it as proof of "natural born" Hawaiian eligibility for the program!

 

From:  http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

 

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

 

 

THIS is a "Vault Copy" HI Birth Certificate:

 Hawaii-birth-certificate-1963

 

And this is the Certification of Live Birth posted on Obama's website:

Obama Fake Birth Certificate  

Notice any differences?

 

Hospital of birth?  Residence address of mother?  Birthplace of parents?  SIGNATURE OF ATTENDANT AT BIRTH?

 

What Obama posted IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE! 

 

There is a further complication, however.  EVEN IF Obama was born in Hawaii, his subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship represents a bigger fly in his ointment.

Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship; and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia.  Thus, whether Obama held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, and whether he was born in the US or Kenya; all is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he would have held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian!  Obama's US Citizenship would be forfeit!

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/

 ObamaIndonesian

 

Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would have had to be thru NATURALIZATION; and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II.  (Could this be why he opted to use the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"?  Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen?  Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro?  I'm just asking...)

If there is any doubt in your mind as to the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve in the office of President of the United States under Title II, then you have a constitutional duty to withhold your electoral vote.

My Post-Election Thoughts

It is indeed a great day when an African American can ascend to the highest office in this land.  I offer congratulations to President-Elect Obama for his well run campaign and his election victory.

 

That said, I can think of OTHER black candidates I would have preferred, on policy and experience criteria.  In fact, prior to the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, I had lobbied the McCain campaign to select the former Lt Governor of Maryland, Michael Steele - also an African-American!

 

However:

 

Unlike the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" treatment which the left gave President Bush thru both terms - opposing every word out of his mouth and undermining him at every turn - I will give Barack my full allegiance and encouragement.  For the sake of the country, I wish him a successful presidency.  However, as I believe a number of stated policies and proposals will be harmful to the country, I will speak in opposition to those initiatives.

 

I will applaud President-Elect Obama when he does what I believe to be the right thing.  I will remain the loyal opposition where he moves in a direction to do what I believe is not.  Some ask, "Will McCain supporters unite with Democrats and lead this country in a new direction?"  The short answer is "That depends on WHAT the new direction IS!!"

 

I will offer Obama the respect due to the office of the presidency.  I will not compromise my conservative principles for the sake of Kumbaya "unity".  People with opposing viewpoints can respectfully disagree on policy and programs.  I believe strongly that this is appropriate, and is why the founders wisely established a system of checks and balances.

 

I certainly understand the elation and pride the African American community is presently experiencing.  It remains to be seen whether Obama can govern effectively, and whether he will "change" the nation for the better or the worse.

 

Sadly, "change" is not a policy, a program or a plan.  Change for its own sake is also not automatically positive.  Whenever one speaks of change, it is wise to ask, "From what, to what?"

 

If the change Obama wishes to implement is to circumvent or weaken the founders' intentional constitutional restrictions on Government, as Obama wished the Warren court would have gone further in doing (check out his own words from 2001:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck ) or if his agenda and initiatives are shaped by his socialistic  background ( evidenced in my prior article: http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/31/obamas_socialist_roots_run_deep.thtml), this would NOT be what I would consider to be "change" in a positive direction!

 

The ball is now exclusively in the Democrats and Obama's court.  How they play it will determine the future of the country for better or worse for years to come. 

 

And we of the loyal opposition, conservatives in exile, will be watching, recording, remembering, and reporting.

 

 

Copyright © 2008 by

Doug Edelman

An Open Letter to America's African-American Community

First off, let me say that is truly is a great day in America when a person of color can stand at the very threshold of the presidency of the United States!  This is testimony indeed of the great strides made by our population as a whole towards a color-blind society.  We are moving past the ignorant bigotry and intolerance of previous generations.
 
With that said, however, we must now question whether the African-American community is themselves falling short of Martin Luther King's dream that one day his children would "be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
 
Barack Obama enjoys almost monolithic support (around 90%) within the black community.  Is this based on anything more than ethnic identity?  Is it any less repugnant for the black community to embrace a candidate BECAUSE he's black than it would be for the white community to OPPOSE a black candidate for the same reason?  Isn't it more appropriate to support one candidate or another based on the criteria of character, experience, policies and past performance?
 
Now, I am NOT telling you not to support Barack Obama.  I'm asking you, WHY do you support Barack Obama?  If it's nothing more than ethnic kinship, I would ask that you honestly examine both candidates on the other criteria before deciding soley on the color of a man's skin!  You KNOW what it's like to be judged on that basis!  It is no less rediculous to assign VIRTUE based on skin color than it is to presume dishonor or unworthiness soley on skin color.
 
And if you are determined to vote for a "black man" just because he IS a "black man... Have you ever realized that Obama is only 1/16 Black African, and has no "slave blood" at all?  He is 50% white.  His father was 7/8 North African Arab (think Khadaffi) and 1/8 Black African (think Mandella or Tutu).  So you are not even voting on the basis of RACE!  You're voting on the basis of high melanin pigmentation!  Would you vote for ME if I sat long enough under a sunlamp?
 
Let me appeal to your intellect.  WHY do you support Barack Obama?  For that matter, why do you support DEMOCRATS?
 
The Democrats have talked for 50 years about "the poor" and have been presumed to be the champions of the minority community.  What have they done to enable and facilitate the success of the black community?  Don't you find it DEMEANING when liberals talk about the black community as though they are incapable and must be "helped" by the "parenting" of government?  Don't you resent if people wonder whether you EARNED your degree or your position at work, or whether some Affirmative Action program elevated you above your qualifications?  Doesn't it bother you that the "soft bigotry of low expectations" permeates Democratic thought and policy when it comes to the black community?  Don't you feel taken for granted when the Democrats PRESUME upon your vote because you are expected to vote nearly unanimously to keep them in power?
 
Liberals define "compassion" by the number of dependent people they dole out meager government "help" to.  Conservatives define "compassion" by the number of people enabled to be no longer dependent and who don't need governmental help!
 
Do you realize that the most vocal OPPONENTS of the Civil Rights Act were Democrats?  Do you realize most Civil Rights Legislation would not have passed if it were not for the strong support of Republicans?  Did you know that LINCOLN, who freed the slaves, was a REPUBLICAN?  George Wallace, the segregationist, was a Democrat!
 
What has Obama done?  Can you name an accomplishment?
 
Did you know that John McCain has a long list of legislative credits, with a history of coalition building and working across the aisle?  Did you know Obama has never introduced a single piece of legislation in the Senate?
 
Does "community organizing" qualify one to be president?  What is a community organizer? - Think ACORN.  Are you concerned about ACORN's activities?  Do voter-fraud and racketeering investigations give you pause to consider that maybe there's something fishy going on there?
 
Does Rev. Wright represent your thinking?
 
Do you support abortion up to (and beyond) the moment of birth?  Would you deny medical care for an infant born alive in a failed abortion?
 
Why is it ok to pursue the American Dream... but as soon as you achieve it, it's ok for the Government to take it away from you?
 
Robbing Peter to pay Paul may sound like a great idea, if you're Paul... but isn't the one doing it nothing more than a benevolent THIEF?
 
Do you know what Socialism or Marxism is?  Do you believe it to be a BAD thing for America?  Would you recognize a Socialist when you see one?  If not, check out:  http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/31/obamas_socialist_roots_run_deep.thtml
 
Did you know Obama views our Constitution as an OBSTACLE to his policies?  I thought the President is sworn to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.  Obama views the RESTRICTIONS on Government placed in the Constitution by our founders to be a TRAGEDY!  Don't believe it?  Check it out:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck 
 
If the so-called "Trickle Down" theory of economics isn't valid, then why are you worried about the Wall Street Collapse, the Sub-Prime Mortgage crisis, or failures of insurance companies, banks and brokers?  Maybe it's true that when Business does poorly, EVERYONE does poorly and when business does well, EVERYONE does well.
 
Barack says his tax plans won't raise taxes on 95% of "small businesses".  What he doesn't tell you is that the 5% of small businesses that he WOULD be raising taxes on are the source of nearly EVERY new job created in the last decade!!  Sure, there are a large number of smaller businesses that make under $250K a year, but these businesses also do not employ more than a few people.  The 5% of "small businesses" (defined as those that are privately held and employ under 500 people) that WOULD experience increased tax burdens are the ones that employ 100, 200, 500 workers.  THEY have been hiring over the last decade while the big fortune 500 corporations have been simply maintaining, outsourcing or downsizing.  Do you work for an employer who is NOT on the Fortune 500 list?  HE will probably get hit in the wallet.  What happens when a small businessman sees his cost of doing business go up?  He must do one of two things.  Either he will raise the prices of his goods and services to cover the increased expenses, or he will cut his costs where he can.
 
In a down economy, raising prices may be impossible, as the market may not be able to sustain a price increase and his customers will stop buying.  If he does raise prices, that is an added cost to everyone who buys his product or service.  But if he doesn't raise prices, his options to cut costs are limited, and usually fall to workforce reduction.  YOUR JOB maybe!
 
So, if Barack wants to "soak the rich" by taxing those making over $250K - he may be costing YOU your JOB!
 
Remember, too, that the government doesn't tax "wealth" it taxes "income".  The wealthy HAVE money.  Tax policy doesn't take that away (until you die).  The wealthy make still more money by investing.  Sometimes they invest in municipal bonds, which fund local government projects like roads (that helps YOU).  Those investments are tax free.  Sometimes they invest in the Stock Market.  Those earnings are Capital Gains, which are taxed differently than ordinary income.  And those investments are the engine which enables companies to expand an create jobs.  And finally they invest OFFSHORE where the tax man doesn't get his hands on it.  Who bears the biggest burden of "Soak the Rich" policies?  The small businesses that employ the vast majority of US!
 
Are you willing to consider that while America may finally be ready to elect a black President, perhaps Barack Hussein Obama shouldn't be that one?

Obama's Socialist Roots Run Deep

As a candidate, Barack Obama presents more questions than answers:  questionable associations, rhetorical gymnastics, style over substance, questions over experience, even questions over eligibility and citizenship.  But when it comes right down to it in the home stretch, it's all about meat & potato economic issues.  As Clinton made his mantra "It's the economy, stupid", so this election is turning on the perception of the candidates' views and plans regarding the current economic woes.
 
Recently, Obama was leading comfortably in the polls.  But then "Joe the Plumber" dropped out of the sky and breathed new life into the McCain Campaign.  So what happened?  Joe just asked a question.  It was Obama's answer that woke people up and changed the dynamic of the campaign.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDVM7ODUBn8
 
Obama revealed a socialist agenda.  "Spreading the Wealth" is his tax policy.  (Conservatives view tax policy as a means to raise necessary revenue for necessary services.  Liberals view tax policy as a means to raise necessary revenue, and to direct behavior.  Socialists and Marxists view tax policy as a means to redistribute wealth and restructure society!)  A large portion of Americans still find socialism distasteful.
 
Robbing from Peter to pay Paul may seem like a great idea to Paul.  (And frighteningly, we have an increasing population of "baby birds" sitting in their nest waiting with their mouths wide open.)  But Peter may not think so highly of the concept.  One might dismiss his objections as he has a vested interest, but the objective observer who is neither Peter nor Paul would have to acknowledge that Robin Hood is, in reality,no more than a thief.
 
So, was the "Joe the Plumber" just an isolated statement that too much is being made of?  Hardly.  It was a crack in the armor that revealed the true core beliefs of Barack Obama, which had been well cloaked before they came to light with his answer to Joe.
 
Back in 2001, Obama lamented that the Constitution RESTRICTS Government and stands in the way of the REDISTRIBUTIVE change he'd like to make!  The audio is SHOCKING and should be heard by every voter before heading to the polls.  So here it is!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck 
 
This is not surprising, given the Socialist, Marxist, and radical bent of so many of the cloud of questionable associates swirling around Barack Obama.  While Ayers and Wright got the press, they are just the tip of the iceberg.  http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1445/pub_detail.asp
 
Is it coincidental that Obama is surrounded by such a motley crew of associates?  Hardly.  In his own words from his book "Dreams of My Father":
 
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.  You can hear the audio here:  http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/barack-obama-admits-i-chose-my-friends.html
 
So, since COLLEGE he's sought out Marxists and Structural Feminists?  And he chose his friends carefully?  (I refer you back to WHO are his friends!)
 
And just what IS a "Structural Feminist"?  Well, there are many different varieties and branches of feminism.  Obama was specifically drawn to the "Structural Feminists".  As explained at http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev108.htm:
 
Structural feminist theory focuses on social structures, notably patriarchy and capitalism that oppress women. Theorists in this tradition emphasize the dominating influence of these social structures, but by doing so they also tend to construe women as passive. Despite their somewhat deterministic view of women's circumstances, structural feminists nevertheless call for resistance toward the mechanisms in families, schools, and workplaces that serve to reproduce oppressive relations of power.
 
So, of all the varieties of Feminism, he sought out the branch that is AntiCapitalist and Anti-Establishment.
 
Obama is and always has been a radical socialist if not Marxist.  It is who he is.  It is his foundational core. 

Berg v Obama - Headed for SCOTUS!

The lawsuit against Barack Obama challenging his citizenship eligibility to serve as President of the United States has been dismissed with the ruling that Philip Berg, the plaintiff, had no standing as a US voting citizen to bring the suit.  Dismissal on these grounds means the judge as decided that the MERITS of the suit don't have to be weighed or decided (so he won't be on the hook for such a decision either way!)  The FACTS of the case never get presented in open court, and the documents don't have to be produced.  A very clean getaway for Obama.

The judge's ruling was based on precedents where voters were not found to have standing because they could not demonstrate direct harm to them or made vague generalities about wrong done to the general population.  Lower courts have tended to avoid granting standing, seemingly preventing David from causing Goliath any great annoyance.

The Berg case is different, however.  If Obama is elected President, and is later found to be ineligible to hold that office, the entire nation will suffer through a constitutional crisis.  Berg simply sought to have an examination of the facts to determine the validity of Obama's candidacy.  Those facts have not yet been vetted by a court!  If a voting citizen of the United States does not have standing to prevent a national crisis of such a magnitude by raising the question of eligibility, to be decided on the evidence in open court, WHO DOES?

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

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

There are even questions on whether the judge was "influenced" or had the decision written for him by some tied to Obama:  http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/

It remains to be seen whether SCOTUS will hear the case, and even if so, it would appear the election will take place before the matter is legally settled.

Berg's suit sought to present evidence that Obama may have been born in Kenya, where under the law at the time, his mother (a US citizen) would have had to have been 19 years old to have conferred her citizenship to him.  (Obama ACKNOWLEDGES dual citizenship with Kenya on his website).  Berg also sought to produce evidence that Obama later held Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and moved with him to Indonesia.  Indonesia and the US did not recognize dual citizenship at the time, so the only valid citizenship he would have held in that case is Indonesian.  He would have expatriated any US or other citizenship held.

Even if he subsequently regained US citizenship, it would be thru naturalization, which is expressly ineligible to serve as POTUS under Article II of the Constitution.

These facts have not been decided or ruled invalid.  They have not been heard in court.  The case was dismissed on the basis of WHO was bringing it, and not on its merits. The question of Obama's eligibility to serve REMAINS an open question.

There are other lawsuits pending on the issue.  Marquis v Reed in the state of WA names the Secretary of State in Washington as the defendant rather than Obama – so it's possible a citizen of the state may be found to have "standing".  This suit seeks to present the same facts as evidence that the Secretary of State has failed to verify Obama's eligibility before placing his name on the ballot.  Marquis says similar suits are in progress in 10 other states.

In the end, this question will, in all likelihood, remain unanswered until after the election.  Voters should be aware that it is still an open question as they head to the polls.

Copyright © 2008 by

Doug Edelman

Another Lawsuit Filed on Obama's POTUS Eligibility

Thanks to the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, Obama now ADMITS (on his "Fight the Smears" website and factcheck.org) that he held dual citizenship with Kenya as a child.  This, in and of itself, may arguably disqualify him under Article II as the whole point of the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is the avoidance of divided allegiances.  (Which makes his covert and quite possibly illegal activities [Logan Act?] on behalf of Kenya's thugocrat, Odinga, all the more relevant and disturbing.)

 

 

Obama-odinga

Obama and Kenya's Thugocrat, Odinga

 

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

There is a further complication, however.  His subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship is a bigger fly in his ointment.  (I laugh whenever reference is made to "citizen of the WORLD'... Obama truly is a WORLD CITIZEN!)

 

Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship, and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia.  Thus, whether he held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, whether he was born in the US or Kenya, or even - as some suggest - CANADA, is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian!  His US Citizenship would be forfeit!

 

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/

 

 

ObamaIndonesian

Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II.  (Could this be why he uses the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"?  Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen?  Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro?  I'm just asking...

 

The judge in the Berg suit has not, to this date, granted Obama's motion to dismiss the case and it continues to move forward.  (If the case has no merit, why hasn't the judge granted the relief Obama filed for??)  Now Obama has a second suit he must contend with.  Both could be easily dispensed with by providing the demanded documentation which would prove he is a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to serve.  He has not produced these documents and instead seeks to DELAY discovery and production of any documents while he makes motions to dismiss.  The "proof" of eligibility he's offered is a "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on his "Fight the Smears" website, and duplicated on Factcheck.org and the Daily Kos sites!  (Forensic experts have declared it a forgery!) Even if it were a genuine Hawaiian "Birth Certificate" with raised seal (and it's not), it would still not adequately address the Indonesian citizenship issue which Obama has yet to acknowledge!

 

The text of the new suit appears below.  Note the factual argument in section 5 which is the basis of the case.

 

(Hey, anyone know a good pro-bono attorney in MO???  I'd love to bring a similar suit that our loony leftist Missouri Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, would have to respond to!!) 


STEVEN R MARQUIS Plaintiff

vs.

SAMUEL SUMNER REED, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF WASHINGTON STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE

Defendant


CIVIL ACTION NO___________


1. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER

1.1. Plaintiff Steven R Marquis, [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] hereby offers this memorandum in support of his motion for injunctive relief, to demand performance of constitutional duties related to the Office of Washington State, Secretary of State by Samuel Sumner Reed, a/k/a Sam Reed, [hereinafter Defendant”].

1.2. Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the presidential candidate Mr. Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for the Office of President and demands that the Office of Secretary of State make such determination by acquisition of original documentation or by receipt of verifiable information from another government entity so charged with overseeing the election process such as the Federal Elections Commission.

1.3. Plaintive argues that when a challenge is received by the Washington State, Secretary of State to the qualification for office of a candidate appearing on the Washington State Ballot that the entire burden of proof falls on the Candidate for Office to present such information and documentation to the Washington State, Secretary of State as would be normal and customary to establish ones minimum qualifications for office.

1.4. Plaintiff argues that the Office of Secretary of State has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to make such determinations as part of certifying and executing fair and open elections.

1.5. Plaintiff argues that is it only sufficient to show reasonable cause for complaint to the Secretary of State for his Office to require documentation of the respective candidate relevant to determination of minimum qualification; that lacking explicit statute defining the requisite documentation that the Secretary of State has the intrinsic authority to set those reasonable standards that would establish certain confidence in the people in the electoral process.

1.6. Plaintiff seeks focused and expedited review, to protect the veracity of the electoral process and maintain the people’s confidence in the government.

2. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2.1. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, "No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." .

2.2. Mr. Barack H. Obama is a candidate for United States Office of the President. However, Mr. Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is, he must be a "natural born" citizen. Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen. There are other legal challenges before the Federal Courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship. That challenge in an of itself further demonstrates plaintiff’s argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the electoral process that would allow such fundamental questions exist at this late hour preceding the election.

2.3. The Washington State office of Secretary of State is responsible for the veracity of the Washington State election process from verifying ahead of time the qualification of the voters, the ballots themselves, the candidates and the final counting and certification of results. That office is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and correctness necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our republic.

2.4. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the people that to qualify for the ballot that the individuals so listed meet the minimum qualifications as outlined in the constitutions and that proof of those minimum qualifications has been received by the officials executing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to meeting those qualifications was requested and received by the Office of the Secretary of State with no verification demanded. This practice, it should be noted, represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting even a driver’s license. Since the office of Secretary of state has at its core the mission of certifying and establishing the veracity of the election process, this complaint seeks a directive to the Washington State Office of Secretary of State to receive appropriate verifiable documentation and certify any individual’s qualification for Office whose basic credentials for that Office have been challenged by formal request to the Office of Secretary of State from a citizen of Washington State.

2.5. In the case of individuals seeking the Office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected to represent the interests of the respective state at the electoral college. Thus, we do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government; we have a Washington State ballot where we elect electors who in turn represent the named individual on the ballot. That is one more reason that the Washington Secretary of State has prevue over the certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast, but also the veracity of the contents of the ballot.

2.6. This complaint of failure to carry out a key task in our election system could be satisfied should verification of candidate qualifications be received from original or certified documents from primary sources or from a verifiable report generated from government agencies such as the Federal Elections Commission. It is the Washington State, Secretary of State’s duty to certify the veracity of documents or reports so received.

2.7. To avert likely civil unrest and a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after the election through laborious legal challenges and impeachment process, this complaint seeks to resolve such complaints prior to the election. It was incumbent on the candidates to present such documentation, but to date Mr. Obama has failed to do so.

2.8. This complaint seeks specifically to verify through the office of the Washington Secretary of State that Mr. Obama is a "natural born" citizen.

2.9. At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records and supporting hospital records. Mr. Obama’s citizenship status has and is being challenged in the federal courts which challenge will cast doubt on the veracity of the electoral system regardless of outcome if not resolved prior to the election. The Washington State, Secretary of State Office is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections to wit the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, Secretary of State Sam Red has not carried out that fundamental duty.

2.10. The Federal Elections Commission FEC is generally tasked with providing oversight and verifications of federal candidates. To date the FEC has not produced either certification or verifiable documentation regarding the candidates basic qualifications for office. Lacking that certification from the FEC, this complaint request the Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed to formally request of Hawaii State Health Department officials to produce forthwith a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate.

2.11. This complaint requests that Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed formally requests primary backup materials if they exist of hospital records that would lend veracity to a Hawaii live birth declaration. A court order of discovery is requested to assist that investigation directed to the respective hospital if so identified on a live birth certificate.

2.12. Should Mr. Obama be discovered, whether by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, or ignorance on his part to not have a valid certified US birth certificate or to otherwise due to have been revealed by such examination of original records to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and thereby his nomination be declared void by the appropriate authorities acting under the law, Plaintiff as well as other Americans will suffer irreparable harm including but not limited to:

2.12.1. Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been deprived of the ability to choose a qualified nominee of their liking;

2.12.2. Irreparable harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn, this too would lead to disenfranchisement.

2.12.3. If the candidate Mr. Obama were to secure the election and later be discovered ineligible, the resulting constitutional and national security crisis that would ensue would generate a severe and genuine likelihood of civil disturbance by virtue of reaction to said disenfranchisement and upset.

2.13. It was well expected that after all the public concern that has been raised over the preceding months now that Mr. Obama would have released for public or official scrutiny the relevant documentation to back up his claim of qualification as a “natural born citizen”. His reaction to public concern and his recent actions in Federal District Court 9/24/2008 demonstrate that Mr. Obama has no intentions of releasing said documentation for review or cannot because they do not exist. The late hour of this request was dictated by the delaying tactics of the candidate Mr. Obama, and the non-responsiveness to Plaintiff’s repeated request to the Office Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.1. As we do not have federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President. This case arises under the Washington Constitution RCW 42.04.020 and Section 15, Article III, Section 17 of the Washington State Constitution and Chapter 43.07 RCW. and the laws of the United States and presents a state question within this Court's jurisdiction.

4. PARTIES

4.1. Plaintiff, Steven Russel Marquis [hereinafter "Plaintiff'], is an adult individual with a home address of 34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024. Citizen USA.

4.2. Defendant, Samuel Sumner Reed, a/k/a Sam Reed is an adult individual with an office address of PO Box 40220 Olympia, WA 98504-0220. Washington State, Secretary of State.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT DEMOSTRATE THE NEED TO PROOF THE CANDIDATE’S MINIMUM CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION.

5.1. These allegations and statements are not intended to be proof of the status of Mr. Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof. That will be determined in the venue of the US District court. The listing of the allegations detailed below are included to demonstrate the reasonable assertion of the need for the Washington State, Secretary of State to reestablish public confidence in the veracity of the electoral process and the obvious need for precertification as to a candidate’s meeting the minimum constitutional requirements.

5.2. By the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for office of the President, you must be a "natural born citizen" and you may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

5.3. There are questions as to where Obama was actually born; in the United States or abroad but subsequently registered in Hawaii. There are further questions regarding Obama's United States citizenship, if he ever held such, being expatriated and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Obama's multi-citizenships with foreign countries, which he may still maintain. To date, Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and his eligibility to run as President of the United States despite requests and recent opportunities to do so in Federal Court.

5.4. The "certificate" that Mr. Obama has posted on his official WEB site is a "Certification of Live Birth," and not a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.

5.5. Researchers have claimed to have been unable to locate any birthing records in island hospitals for Barak Obama’s mother. Mr. Obama has offered none for review.

5.6. Three forensic document experts have published extensive reports claiming that there is evidence of tampering on even the Obama WEB site displayed certificate.

5.7. Numerous Freedom of Information Requests have been sent to Officials in Hawaii with no response from the public officials nor has Mr. Obama granted access for release of the information lending to the concern over the veracity of the attestation on the candidate’s application for candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

5.8. The facts are undisputed by Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama's parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

5.9. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, has never given the name of the hospital he was born in; whereas there are reports that Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Mr. Barack H. Obama was born in Kenya. Reports further reflect that Mr. Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. There are claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii, but these have not been released for scrutiny. It is alleged in the Federal trial and is a matter of much general speculation that Mr. Obama’s mother was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. It is likely that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth.

5.10. Regarding the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, it is variously circulated that Obama's birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Obama has provided no proof of birth from of either of these or any other US based facility. He has made no effort to address these public concerns.

5.11. There are no published or known hospital birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama's mother. There are only claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

5.12. There is even a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961

5.13. At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. Subsequently, under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Barack H. Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. There are no indications or reports that Mr. Obama ever renounced that dual citizenship conferred either by nature of birth or by virtue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship. On Mr. Obama’s Senate web site, Mr. Obama acknowledges his father holds Kenyan nationality but avoids addressing that that he (Mr. Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.

5.14. If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of “natural born.” The laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama's mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a "natural born" citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27,1952,66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.c. §1401(b), Matter of S-F-and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att'y Gen. 1944). Obama would have only been Naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified nor eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section Clause 4.

5.15. Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.

5.16. The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when the person became naturalized upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Obama's mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated herself and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.

5.17. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has available copies of the school registration where it clearly states Obama's name as Barry Soetoro and lists his citizenship as Indonesian, Obama's father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama's date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4,1961 in Honolulu and Obama's Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher took the actual footage of the school record.

5.18. In or about 1971, Obama's mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

5.19. Sometime after the return of Obama to Hawaii, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii and divorced her husband, Lolo Soetoro. At the time of divorce, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham could have regained her U.S. citizenship. In order to regain her citizenship, Obama's mother would have had to take the oath of allegiance required. Such oath of allegiance may be taken abroad before a diplomatic or consular of the United States, or in the United States before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of a court. Such Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General and upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General shall be delivered. The certified copy shall be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department or agency of the Government of the United States. 8U.S.c.§1435.

5.20. Obama's mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years and then only after he took the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of court. Since the Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, then Obama should be able to produce in court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered. No such copy has been to date produced for public examination.

5.21. After many attempts of the public to obtain Obama's Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Obama's campaign website. However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth as posted on Obama's campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were that the posted Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. It was further discovered that the posted COLB had evidence of having been created from an altered/forged from a COLB issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and allegedly forged COLB is still on Obama's website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

5.22. Even if Obama had and subsequently maintained his United States Citizenship, which citizenship he has failed before District Court to demonstrate, he may still carry citizenships in Kenya and/or Indonesia. These facts call into question what the constitution attempted to address regarding potently divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Mr. Obama carries multiple citizenships and would be ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

6. Failure to grant injunctive relief will realize these detriments:

6.1. Failing to officially and publically vet the status of the citizenship claims of Mr. Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.

6.2. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a potentially corrupted, fraudulent nomination and election process to continue.

6.3. Failure to grant injunctive relief demanding the Washington State, Secretary of State certify the minimum qualifications of challenged candidates not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary and electoral process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected.

6.4. As stated above, Plaintiff as well as all American citizens will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. Plaintiff does not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues.

6.5. Despite many complaints, the FEC has failed Plaintiff and the American citizens by their failure to date to perform due diligence and inquire into Mr. Obama's eligibility to run for Office of the President. Lacking such certification, it is incumbent on the Washington State, Secretary of State to certify or decertify as to the eligibility for office before the election based on the availability of clear documentation demonstrating that minimum qualifications for the respective office has been met by candidates.

7. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

7.1. Grant injunctive relief demanding that Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as Health Department and hospital records or verifiable reports regarding same from the FEC.

7.2. Plaintiff requests Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to immediately demand such verifiable report from the FEC or demand a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and subpoena as needed for the release hospital records if so claimed on said Live Birth Certificate to further prove he was born in Hawaii as Mr. Obama claims.

7.3. Direct Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to certify or decertify the challenged candidates prior to the election based on the availability of clear documentation.

7.4. Plaintiff requests the Washington State, Secretary of State to immediately demand a certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance proving he regained his United States Citizenship.

7.5. If Secretary Sam Reed is unable to document a certified record of Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, Secretary of State Sam Reed must decertify Mr. Obama as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States Office of the President under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;

7.6. Award Plaintiff such costs and fees applicable by law; and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Steven R Marquis

34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024

               425-698-7084

 

VERIFICATION

I, STEVEN R MARQUIS, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.  

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Tax Facts!

Sure, Barack Obama's associations are troubling and raise questions of his values, world view, judgment, character and honesty... and Bill Ayers isn't the half of it

But for so many of us today, these issues are just so much "talking heads" noise. The American public is much more focused, in this day of financial turmoil, on "meat and potatoes" issues of the economy. And the health of Wall Street isn't as significant as the "Main Street" viewpoint of "what about my job, my healthcare, my TAXES?"

The discussion of taxes occupied a prominent portion of the final debate and "Joe the Plumber" has become a phenomenon!

Unfortunately, neither candidate clearly articulated their own or their opponent's tax policies clearly or concisely enough that the casual viewer could possibly extract a lucid understanding of how their policies would or could affect U.S. It then falls to analysts and commentators to distill it all down for public consumption.

So, here are some Tax Facts to bear in mind as you evaluate the candidates and their statements on taxes.

  • Remember that there are scores of taxes imposed on the American people... not just the income tax. Your net buying power is affected by the sum total of them, and not just the income tax. So if you have your income tax reduced, but taxes on the goods and services you buy increase, you may see a net reduction in your purchasing power though you have more dollars in your pocket. Moreover, if tax policies result in higher prices, this is effectively a hidden tax as your purchasing power erodes.
  • 30% of Americans have no income tax liability! They pay no income tax. When Obama offers "tax relief" to 95% of the people, 1/3 of those people will get "relief" in the form of a check when they paid nothing into the system! This is classic socialistic redistribution of wealth. Obama unwittingly revealed this intent in his "Joe the Plumber" conversation.
  • Even if it were so that 95% could or would receive a tax cut, the top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. Yes, almost 40% of all income taxes are already paid by the top 1%. Based on these numbers, is further soaking the "rich" sustainable?
  • Tax cuts for the rich? You are in the top 25% of income earners if you bring in more than $62,068 a year. (Bet you didn't know that means you're rich…) The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). (source) This means that the bottom 75% of earners already bear only 14% of the burden despite earning almost 1/3 of all the income. Who needs tax relief? If you're in the top 25% at $62K, how low must your income be to be considered by some to be "middle class"? Low enough to be one of those not paying income taxes at all?
  • Tax cuts don't reduce federal revenues; they stimulate economic growth which results in increased revenues to the federal government! It happens every time it's tried.  Kennedy's tax cuts raised revenues. Reagan's tax cuts doubled revenues. Bush's tax cuts also increased revenues. (Spending is another issue entirely.)
  • Tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas: The implication, of course, is that there is some policy, implemented or proposed, to reward companies for sending jobs abroad. There is not. A generalized policy toward tax relief on business in general (which would positively impact the economy as a whole) would be a tide that lifts all boats – including those who might outsource – but there is no concerted effort to inventivize shipping jobs offshore.
  • On the other hand, there are dis-incentives in the tax code to bring overseas jobs back home. Removing these barriers has been painted as a "tax break" for companies who have overseas operations, even though doing so would bring these operations back home. Currently, the U.S. has the second highest tax rates on businesses in the world, something mentioned by John McCain during Wednesday’s debate. When a company has overseas operations, they pay the prevailing tax rate in the country of the operations. Here is the conundrum: Whatever the difference is between that overseas tax burden and our U.S. rates is required to be paid to the US, but is deferred as long as the operations remain overseas. Upon repatriating these operations back to the U.S., the cumulative difference is immediately due. Therefore, companies can avoid paying this accrued tax by remaining overseas. (These policies have been in place since long before George W. Bush, by the way.) If this barrier to returning home could be mitigated, many operations would be repatriated, creating domestic jobs and stimulating our economy. This could be accomplished by a moratorium on collecting the accrued difference, by allowing the accrued difference to be amortized over a number of years, or by removing the requirement to pay the difference at all. Furthermore, the current high corporate tax burden in the U.S. drives business overseas to pay the lower rates and defer the difference, so cutting the rate to a rate more competitive with the global market would keep more business at home in the first place.
  • Corporations don't pay taxes! The fact is that corporations consider taxes part of their cost of doing business, and so they respond to increased taxes in one of two ways: they either increase the cost of the goods and services they provide (impacting their customer's buying power) or they reduce other costs by cutting jobs. When we say we will reduce taxes for the "middle class" and increase taxes on those earning over $250,000 (which are primarily small businesses who employ people), we will see higher prices – which reduces buying power and therefore hurts the "middle class."

Sadly, most Americans do not understand these facts, and are therefore easily swayed by eloquent "we're going to take care of you" speeches. Whenever a politician promises you a free goodie, please: ask “how?”

Joe the Plumber: Destroy Him!!

Isn't it interesting how predictable the American Left is?  When someone scores an indisputable point against "the One", they ignore the message and attack the messenger!  "Joe the Plumber" has revealed and highlighted Obama's socialistic agenda – and it's had an impact on Obama's support!  So he must be destroyed.

 

So, first, we heard the immediate "I don't know any plumbers making $250,000" argument.  I'm still not sure what the purpose of such a statement could possibly be, but the dismissive tone accompanying the statement is obviously intended to attempt to ridicule Joe away!  But the statement is completely disingenuous, as Joe didn't even say he was a plumber!  He said he's considering buying a PLUMBING COMPANY, which EMPLOYS plumbers, and which GROSSES around a quarter mil.  He didn't say he makes $250K.  He didn't say he'd EARN 250K after buying the business.  The business grosses $250K.  The business pays it's employees.  The business maintains its vehicles.  The business buys its materials.  The business pays for its office, phones and utilities.  The business pays its taxes.  The business pays to advertise.  After all that, the business owner can take a salary.

 

Next the LeftMedia lights up with the accusation that Joe isn't even a registered voter.  Aside from the fact that this is blatantly false… Joe is registered and voted in the OH primaries… what possible relevance would this have?  I thought ACORN has, as its purpose, to get unregistered people interested, active and REGISTERED now!  So here's a guy who's now very interested and engaged in the political process.  We should rejoice!

 

So then the thugocracy dispatches their investigators to dig dirt on Joe.  They claim he's not licensed… But he doesn't need one presently, and the company he works for has one!  From the Toledo Blade, "According to Lucas County Building Inspection records, A. W. Newell Corp. does maintain a state plumbing license, and one with the City of Toledo, but would not be allowed to work in Lucas County outside of Toledo without a county license."  Does he even need one to OWN a plumbing company that EMPLOYS plumbers?   And again, how is this relevant to Obama's Socialism?

 

Finally, the thugs discover that Joe has a tax lien on about $1100 he owes in back taxes.  Does this mean he's not credible to ask Obama a question on the impact of his tax policies?  Does this have bearing on the fact that Obama's answers reveal him to be a Robin Hood Socialist bent on redistribution of wealth?  It would seem that someone struggling to meet his CURRENT tax liability would be uniquely appropriate to question how Obama's policies might make matters worse!

 

You may have heard the phrase, "Don't kill the messenger."  This phrase is usually attributed to the ancient Greek and then later Roman custom of employing messengers to carry news throughout the empire. The law PROTECTED these messengers, and decreed that they should be allowed to pass unharmed as they carried out their duty, even if the recipients found the message distasteful.

 

Sadly, Obama and his minions DO try to destroy anyone who can bring a message critical or damaging to the campaign.  Live long and prosper, Joe!

 

 

Copyright © 2008 by

Doug Edelman

Ayers Isn't The HALF Of It!

The Obama defenders are complaining that William Ayers’ radical bombings in the late 1960s and early 1970s are dismissible as "old news." They declare Obama's associations to be "irrelevant." (Somehow I'm prompted to wonder what they'd say if McCain were a friend of a 1940s Nazi prison camp guard.) Yet Obama's associations are relevant, as they are in fact current news, and they speak to his judgment, character and to his political proclivities and inclinations.  And we can never forget that a man is known by the company he keeps.

 

Here is a brief accounting of over a dozen of Obama’s long-time colleagues, associates and friends.

 

Khalid al-Mansour: the anti-Semite Black Nationalist racist who changed his name from Don Marshall and converted to Islam, was a patron of Obama’s and helped advance Obama’s candidacy to law school. He was instrumental in starting the violent Black Panthers group, reportedly became Kind Saud’s attorney and represents OPEC. No wonder Obama doesn't want to drill anywhere, although he changed that tune in last Tuesday's debate in an apparent attempt to drill for votes.

 

As an article in FrontPageMag.com reported, “And why is it that black racists such as al-Mansour constitute a significant proportion of these hate mongers? In large part, it is because blacks have been specifically and aggressively targeted for recruitment by leaders of the worldwide jihad, just as they were targeted for recruitment by the Communist Party USA in the 1920s. Black grievance, combined with the evangelism of the Nation of Islam over the last seventy years, has established an audience for the ideology of hate.”

 

It is notable that Khalid al-Mansour is an advisor and friend to Prince al-Walid bin Talal, the Saudi sheik to whom Mayor Rudy Giuliani returned a $10 million check right after 9/11 because bin Talal stated that America brought the bloodthirsty attack on itself due to our foreign policy.

 

Rashid Khalidi: an enthusiastic supporter of the Palestinians, fervent critic of Israel (which he calls a destructive “racist” state), an admirer of suicide bombers and a driving force behind the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). This so-called pro-Palestinian “community organization” in Chicago is another beneficiary of the Obama-Ayers team at the Woods Fund. It promotes an agenda that would horrify Obama’s Jewish supporters and any normal person. In fact, both Sen. Obama and Mr. Ayers actually spoke at a testimonial dinner for Rashid Khalidi.

 

According to Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “ ‘Khalidi and Obama lived in nearby faculty residential zones and the two families dined together a number of times,’ a source on the University of Chicago faculty told WorldNet Daily. ‘The Obamas even babysat the Khalidi children.’ ”

 

Ingrid Mattson: President of the troubling Islamic Society of North America, a group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist trial, and a woman whom Obama invited to lead prayer at the Democrat Convention, which she did.

 

Frank Marshall Davis: another of Obama's mentors mentioned in his book, a well-known Stalinist Communist whose devotion to the Soviet Union and hatred for an America which he described as racist and imperialistic put him under FBI surveillance for at least 19 years. It is quite possible that Davis did more to shape Obama’s world view than many in his entourage.

 

Tony Rezko: convicted felon of fraud and shady dealings, he and Obama were very close. Rezko helped get Obama a sweetheart mortgage, and he bundled tons of money for Obama’s campaign. Rezko bought property (under another sweetheart deal) to be Obama's neighbor. As of today, it appears Rezko is willing to talk to reduce his sentence.

 

William Ayers: Ayers is still today (this is not an “old news” story) an unrepentant terrorist.  He was quoted (coincidentally on September 11, 2001, in the New York Times) as being proud and unapologetic for the bombings of the Pentagon, the Capitol and the New York City Police where several police officers were murdered as a result. In fact, he stated that his only regret was that they hadn't done more.  For a smug thug like this, Sen. Obama – unbelievably – did the favor of writing a dust-jacket blurb forMr. Ayers' 2001 book, "Fugitive Days". 

 

Ayers and Obama served on the board of the Annenberg Foundation together, overseeing the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars. Currently, or rather, inexplicably, all the related records remain "unavailable."

 

Interestingly, the Annenberg Foundation runs the "Factcheck.org" site that Obama uses as his only source of "facts" on his "fight the smears" website. Why or how factcheck.org is given any mainstream media credibility as a fact source is laughable. The mainstream press should be ashamed of itself for using them.

 

Saved from jail, unfortunately, by legal technicalities, Ayers is married to Bernardine Dohrn, another Weathermen terrorist once on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List, who did serve time for refusing to testify about the death of other Weathermen when a bomb they were building blew up prematurely.  J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.''

 

Bernardine Dohrn, who in the 80’s worked at the same time with Michelle Obama for the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin,was also a fan of Charles Manson: 

 

At a 1969 "War Council" in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman "fork salute," she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!" The "War Council" ended with a formal declaration of war against "AmeriKKKa," always spelled with three K's to signify the United States' allegedly ineradicable white racism.

 

ACORN: An organization so fraught with voter fraud they should be closed down and indicted under RICO. Where you're never too dead to vote twice. Ever wonder what a "community organizer" is?  Think ACORN.  For whom was Obama a "constitutional lawyer"? ACORN.  Currently, numerous ACORN offices are being raided by the FBI and investigated for ongoing and major voter fraud.

 

Fannie/Freddie: Obama was the number two campaign contribution recipient from Freddie and Fannie execs, behind Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd. And bear in mind, those are numbers compiled over nine years. Obama has been a senator only for four of those years and raked in almost as much dough as Dodd did in all nine years.

 

Franklin Raines/Jim Johnson: Former heads of Fannie Mae, both men were removed for impropriety. Both made tens of millions of dollars from their time at the helm, helping to pilot the economy onto the rocks. Are there two people more responsible for the current economic mess? Besides Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, they may have had more to do with creating the problem than anyone else... and they're in Obama's inner circle giving economic advice; Jim Johnson was actually chosen to vet Obama's VP Pick.

 

Rev. Wright and  Father Pfleger: radical, fervently anti-American, and anti-Semitic. The Rev. Louis Farrakhan, also an anti-Semite and black racist, was recently honored by Rev. Wright for “Lifetime Achievement”. And Obama called them mentors, friends and/or spiritual advisors. What did he learn from them over the decades of their association? And why did he not reject their views until it was politically expedient for him to do so?

 

Michelle Obama:  Mrs. Obama seems to hold radical separatist views consistent with a 20-year attendance and tutelage under Rev. Wright. Her college thesis was on assimilation vs. "the black culture,” and she was openly dismayed that so many blacks were choosing to assimilate into the American melting-pot culture. She also stated on the campaign trail that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country.  This, from a possible First Lady of the land.

 

From anti-American at best, to virulently anti-American and criminal anti-American at worst, this is the rag-tag crowd with whom Obama has chosen to build his career and personal relationships for the past few decades. That such a person – and crowd - could end up holding the fate and deepest secrets of our most precious jewel, America, in their hands – as well as all our futures - is deeply troubling, to say the least, and it would be an unspeakable tragedy if it were to transpire. 

 

Can You Hear Us Now? (We Said NO!)

The Paulson Bailout, proposed at $700 Billion, has now grown in the Senate to $850 Billion with the addition of absolutely ridiculous “sweeteners” like free bicycles and tax breaks to wooden arrow makers!  The Senate has completely lost its way.

But before the House considers, or worse, ACCEPTS any permutation of the Paulson Bailout Plan, they must remember that you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear… and no amount of lipstick will sell this stinker of a porker to the American people!

Even without the additional $150 in pork, think about this:

How much is $700 Billion?

More than the government spent COMBINED in Fiscal 2006 for:

Medicaid                                            $180.6 in Billions

Education                                           $118.6

Health                                                 $ 63.9

Transportation                                   $ 70.2

Veterans Benefits                             $ 70.0

Community Development                 $ 54.5

Food & Nutrition Assistance            $ 53.9

Justice System                                  $ 41.0

Housing Assistance                          $ 38.3

TOTAL:                                             $691.0

Source: Budget of the

United States

Government, Fiscal Year 2006

According to CNN August 14, there were 750,000 homes currently in foreclosure. In addition to hurting the homeowners, these troubled assets set the value of the lenders' capitol plummeting due to the “Mark to Market” Accounting rules.

$700 Billion divided by 750,000 homes = 933,333 PER HOME!

As ridiculous as this might be, and I'm not actually proposing it (just using it to illustrate JUST HOW bad the Paulson plan is!), why don’t we just give each troubled homeowner $100,000 toward their mortgage to keep them in their home and reduce or eliminate their balance? We can then refinance any remaining balances for 15 years at 7% fixed.

This would cost taxpayers only $75 Billion, the homeowners get to keep their homes and reduce or eliminate their house payments. The banks get instant liquidity. Balances under $100,000 are paid off and come off the lenders’ books! The lenders get to convert bad loans over $100,000 balance to smaller, better risk loans at a nice fat 7% and suddenly have VALUE again.

The only loser... the guy who bought a home he can afford, and who continues making his payments, on time.

Of course, this would be an unconscionable giveaway bailout, giving taxpayer money to people who bought houses they couldn't afford... and yet it's more measured, more reasonable and more likely to WORK than the Paulson plan... which does nothing to address the cause of the problem: the CRA, Mark to Market, and corruption at Fannie & Freddie, which MUST be dismantled or at least downsized!  And it doesn’t help the people who took loans they couldn’t afford either!  It bails out the lenders for making bad loans and taking unacceptable risks.

But… we have to do SOMETHING!!  Or do we?

We’re told that inaction will melt the economy.  But it won’t!  And WHAT does the Government do WELL anyway?  Do you trust them to fix the problem?  Most often (and in this case), Government IS the problem; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY&feature=bz301 and www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa0agm711PQ. 

No bailout has passed yet.   The day the House failed to pass it, the market dropped 777 points.  The doomsday crowd went berserk!  Yet when you realize that the market was down over 300 points BEFORE the vote, the failure of the bill only accounts for a 400 odd point drop.  Interestingly, the very next day, the market bounced back with the 3rd largest point daily gain in history… and essentially nullified that post-vote loss!  Then the Senate passed their pork-laden version of the bailout, and the market dropped precipitously again!  I guess you could say the market reacted NEGATIVELY to the bailout!!

So how does it affect “Main Street”? You can still go down to the bank and get a home loan or a car loan… IF YOU QUALIFY.  Folks are still driving to work at jobs they still have, in cars they still own, burning gas that they still pay too much for.

Remember EF Hutton?  When they spoke, people listened… till they stopped listening.  Where are they now?  Do you care?

Remember Smith Barney?  They made money the old fashioned way… they earned it!  They’re not earning much now, are they?  Did their evaporation off the face of the earth hurt you?

The fact is that brokerages and even banks have failed before and will again.  YOUR deposits are insured and you retain access to your funds.  YOUR stock assets in your portfolio are YOURS and not your brokers.  If your broker goes under, you still own your stocks.  Find another broker to handle your trades!

I recently proposed a workable plan that would bolster confidence in the markets and ease the capitalization/credit/valuation problems without socializing the markets or giving corporate welfare to Wall Street or handing over inordinate power to Paulson.  Read it at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/2008/09/30/fixing_the_financial_crisis_without_socializing_the_market.thtml   If our lawmakers would consider implementing such a plan our economy would improve without mortgaging our future generations to throw $700 Billion or more at it.

For too long Fannie/Freddie and Wall Street have played fast and loose, always with the understanding that if things turned sour, the Government would come to the rescue.  They’ve behaved (even if we exclude corruption and cooking books) like spoiled children who act irresponsibly and get in trouble frequently, only to look to their parents to bail them out – and their expectations keep getting met!  The best thing such a parent can do is put a stop to it – and institute some “tough love”.  When they begin to stand firm, saying “NO, you made your bed, now bear your consequences”, that is the beginning of the maturing of the child.  It’s time that the Wall Street institutions begin to grow up.

Will some firms fail?  Yes.  And they’ll be scooped up at bargain prices by firms who HAVE investable capital!  Will people lose jobs?  Yes.  Will they get other jobs?  If they have marketable skills, they will!  Will the “Market” handle their absence… sure.  The services they provided will be offered by other, more innovative, more competitive and more successful enterprises.  THAT is our capitalistic market-driven system… and when ALLOWED to work, it DOES.

Copyright © 2008 by

Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/

Fixing the Financial Crisis Without Socializing the Market

A giveaway of hundreds of billions of dollars is not only bad policy, it is not necessary!  Unfortunately, the Democrats have successfully brainwashed the public into believing that the problem was caused by deregulation, when in fact it was caused by Democrat inspired rules and regulations which set up a house of cards in our economy.

 

When it became apparent that this house of cards was getting large, and wobbly, those who raised the warning flag (Republicans) were shot down by defenders of the system (Democrats).  See:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa0agm7lIPQ  There you’ll see video of the 2004 Fannie/Freddie hearings.  You’ll see who tried to forestall the collapse, and who denied there was a problem.  Who questioned the management of Fannie & Freddie, and who declared the raising of the question to be a “lynching” of Franklin Raines, and who praised Raines management at the helm.

 

Despite the minimal likelihood that the fix outlined below would stand a chance of being implemented, given our current political environment, I will outline a plan that WOULD work in the hopes that SOME of these proposals might be incorporated into any plan that makes its way thru congress.

 

  • NO taxpayer giveaway of hundred of billions of dollars and don’t put it in the hands of Paulson and Bernanke!
  • Provide assistance in the form of LOANS and INSURANCE.  The government does not need to take OWNERSHIP of private institutions like AIG!  Do NOT SOCIALIZE our markets.
  • Prohibit all naked market trading.  If you want to trade it… OWN it!
  • ELIMINATE the “Mark to Market” rule – which artificially pulls capital off the books of financial institutions and is a contributing factor to the crisis.  This rule requires securities to be recorded on the books at the lowest value it might be sold for in a panic firesale – even zero - rather than their ACTUAL value.  This results in under-capitalization even when REAL assets are adequate!
  • REPEAL the Community Redevelopment Act, and dismantle or downsize Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
    • Well intentioned, the act sought to end the practice of “redlining” where certain neighborhoods were deemed unsuitable risks for mortgage loans.  While the purpose to put homeownership within the reach of more lower income people is laudable… the execution was poor.
    • As Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew under Clinton, and the “Affordable Housing” mandates forced the lowering of lending standards to allow more and more people to “qualify”, the “sub prime” market ballooned.  Variable rate loans with low intro rates to get people INTO homes were the norm for these “sub prime” loans.   But adjustable rates WILL adjust, and if artificially low at inception, the direction of that inevitable  adjustment is most assuredly upward.  Lenders and borrowers alike completely ignored the factor of affordability AFTER an upward adjustment in the interest rate!
    • Lending institutions were COMPELLED by federal regulators to write more and more of these sub-prime loans.  They had target numbers of low-income homes they had to finance or face penalties and further regulation.  So qualification requirements were further relaxed, and more “creative” financing options emerged.  No money down; Interest Only financing; Negative Amortization loans.  Anyone who was paying attention at the time was asking, “How the heck can that work??
    • Mortgage brokers ORIGINATED loans, with no intention of CARRYING the loan thru amortization!  They wrote the paper to sell it to a larger entity – who was happy to buy them up, as they were securitized by the GSEs (Government Secured Entities) such as Fannie and Freddie.  Fannie & Freddie grew and grew, securitizing ultimately 80% of all mortgages – meaning they held just about ALL the bad paper!  A house of cards DOOMED to fall!
  • Institute a moratorium on Capital Gains taxes… allow businesses to put their OWN money to work to climb out of the crisis.
  • Make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.  More money in the hands of consumers will stimulate the economy.  Raising taxes in a period of economic downturn is suicidal.
  • PULL DOWN the tax DISincentives to repatriating overseas operations back home in the USA.
    • There are no tax INCENTIVES (existing or proposed) to move job overseas, Obama ads notwithstanding.  There are, however tax BARRIERS to bringing overseas operations BACK HOME.
    • A company with offshore operations pays the taxes in that country.  If those taxes are lower than US taxes… the difference is owed to the USA.  BUT as long as they REMAIN overseas, they defer that debt.  An incentive to STAY overseas.
    • Upon repatriating those operations, a company would owe ALL the difference in tax.  A company will not have to pay that for as long as they REMAIN overseas.
    • A moratorium on collecting the deferred tax difference for companies repatriating operations back home would stimulate the economy by creating domestic jobs and returning industry to our shores.
  • ENFORCE our borders and our immigration laws.  Illegal immigration is a huge drain upon our nation’s resources.
  • Return to the gold standard.  Set the dollar at 1/500 of an ounce of gold and back our dollar with more than a promise to pay.  Stabilize the dollar's value abroad and eliminate short selling of our currency.
  • Eliminate the Federal Reserve.  A PRIVATE CORPORATION which creates currency out of nothing, and LENDS it to the government at interest!  The CONGRESS is constitutionally empowered to coin money… not the FED.
  • REPEAL Sarbanes-Oxley.  Another well-intentioned but poorly executed regulation crafted in the wake of Enron/Worldcom.  (Which are small potatoes scandals when laid next to Fannie/Freddie!!)  SARBOX compliance has placed an undue burden upon “play by the rules” companies, but has done little to curtail the abuses by those who have purposed to “cook the books”.

Of course, too many have too much vested interest in NOT implementing the above for it all come about, though if it did our economy would BOOM!

 

On the other hand, if SOME or ANY of the above can be incorporated into any next attempt at a rescue bill… we may achieve a bill that will stop the bleeding and restore confidence in our markets.

 

 

Copyright © 2008 by

Doug Edelman

 

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College.

Goodbye USA, Hello USSA!

Welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika!!

 

The Wall Street Bailout as currently proposed is going to cost taxpayers $700 Billion.  A $700 BILLION Bailout???  Half the Federal Annual Budget??

 

Let's see... wasn't it just 4 years ago that $87 Billion could run a WAR for a YEAR?  And Congress balked at that figure ("I voted FOR the $87 Billion before I voted against it..."). What have we spent IN TOTAL on Iraq?  I don't think we've gotten close to $700 Billion yet, and now they want to spend that amount on bailing out a bunch of misbehaving children on Wall Street?? 

thought investors understood that they're putting their money at RISK, and that RISK was part and parcel of the opportunity for high returns!  Why is it now the responsibility of the average taxpayer to bail out those who managed their money with less responsibility than a drunken sailor? (With apologies to our sober and responsible men and women at sea!)

 

Understand this:  It was not DEREGULATION that caused this meltdown of the markets.  It was Democrat Do-Gooding REGULATIONS that caused it!

 

When congressional pressure was brought to bear on the Mortgage Industry to put more “disadvantaged” people into houses, it became necessary to reduce the creditworthiness standards required to qualify for the loans – as these people could not qualify under reasonable risk assessments for conventional lending at the time.  So money became cheaper, and the “sub-prime” mortgage market was created with relaxed creditworthiness requirements.  Teaser rates were offered to get people INTO houses they couldn’t afford.  Adjustable rate mortgages were originated, making money for brokers – and then sold off to bigger players like Countrywide.  With Fannie and Freddie saying “Go, Go, GO” while relying on government backing.  This house of cards was BUILT by the Democrats trying to put unqualified people into houses.  The Democrats could not abide the reality that SOME PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD HOUSES!  To them, the right to homeownership meant more than the right to purchase what you can AFFORD to buy.  For these utopian dreamers, the right to home ownership was akin to the right to an attorney… “If you so desire and cannot afford, one will be provided for you…”

 

It is a fascinating exercise to lay Obama next to McCain on the issue of the collapse of Fannie/Freddie...

 

From Barack Obama:

 

We're told that the current financial crisis and the collapse/bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the result of "Bush/McCain Policies."

 

It seems like all he has to offer is to paint McCain as Bush 44... and exploit Bush Derangement Syndrome!

 

(Isn’t it interesting to note that behind Sen Dodd - the chairman of the powerful banking committee - Barack Obama received more money from Fannie/Freddie than any other lawmaker of the over 300 who received contributions between 1989 and 2008... and Obama was only in the Senate for 3 of those years!)

 

On the other hand; John McCain, who has never taken an earmark and has campaigned actively against them, sought to reign in the abuses of Fanny/Freddie in 2005 by co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 1 90 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190  - which was shot down by Democrat resistance!

 

Note his statement from the Congressional Record, quoted below, in support of the Bill.  Seems he had a crystal ball!!  (This from a guy who stated self-effacingly that he doesn't understand the economy as well as he'd like!  If only more people understood it as well as he does!)

 

Statement by John McCain (R-AZ)

 

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

 

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

 

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

 

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

 

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 1 90 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

 

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Think about this for a moment.  Suppose you are a family earning $100,000 a year.  You are $400,000 in debt including your mortgage.  You live paycheck to paycheck, meeting current expenses and making payments on your debt – and putting money into savings or investments is a nice goal, but hardly a reality.  You have a wild and irresponsible child who has run himself into $50,000 debt with drunken gambling.  You then take a loan to hand him a $50,000 check to bail him out.

 

Is that SANE??  Yet that’s exactly what we, as taxpayers, are about to do if the proposed bailout goes through!

 

Our Manufacturing Industry has already been taxed and regulated into moving off-shore.  Maxine Waters revealed that she wants to take over the Oil Industry.  Hillary wants to take over the Health Care Industry.  And now the Financial Industry is in the process of being taken over.  Socialism IS conquering us!

 

Paulson and Bernake are about to END the USA as we knew it.  Good bye, America... you've had a nice run.

Property values in New Zealand are now going to climb thru the roof!

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

As Goes Missouri, So Goes The Election!

For 104 years, the winner of Missouri’s electoral votes has gone on to win the presidency in every case except 1956, when Missouri voted (by a very slim margin) for Adlai Stevenson, a popular Governor of neighboring Illinois. Missouri’s status as a Bellwether is even cited on the University of Missouri’s website at http://rcp.missouri.edu/briefs/electionexperts08bellwether.html:

In every presidential election since 1904 with the exception of the 1956 election, Missouri has voted for the winner of the election and earned the nickname of a bellwether state. University of Missouri political experts are available to discuss the importance of Missouri as a bellwether state in this year’s presidential election.

"There is no other state like Missouri," said Marvin Overby, professor and Frederick A. Middlebush Chair in the Department of Political Science. "Missouri is the southernmost northern state, northernmost southern state, easternmost western state and westernmost eastern state. It is geographically and demographically in the middle. It's in a unique position that tends to reflect well where the rest of the country is politically."

Unlike Illinois, there is no single central urban location in Missouri, and the state is much more balanced between urban and rural, said Overby. Compared with other states, Missouri is average in income, education and age. For these reasons, Missouri has become a good indicator of the nation’s political attitudes and the presidential candidates will not ignore this, said Overby.

"Since the Civil War and the issue of slavery, Missouri has always been in the position as a bellwether state, and this year is no different," Overby said. "Presidential candidates are likely to make more stops in the state and test their messages in Missouri. Missouri is a pivotal state. If you win Missouri, you win the White House."

With that said, it is interesting to note that polling data over the last month or more has shown McCain leading in Missouri by as much as 10 points. Given Missouri’s “bellwether” status, one might think that the media would be paying attention, however those outlets which even pay attention to a state by state accounting of the vote tend to list Missouri as “Leaning” to McCain rather than solidly behind him!

If there was any doubt as to the enthusiasm of Missouri voters toward the McCain/Palin ticket, yesterday’s “Road to the Convention” rally at T R Hughes Ballpark in suburban O’Fallon, Missouri should cause analysts to sit up and take notice.

More than 25,000 people packed the stadium – in a suburban minor-league ball park in St Charles County, Missouri – about 40 miles outside of St Louis. These were not hand-picked campaign workers being rewarded with a ticket… these were “the folk” who cared enough to stand in 90 degree heat as they waited patiently in line to go thru the security checkpoint. Volunteers handed out water cups encouraging people to keep hydrated. Vendors did a brisk business selling buttons, hats and bumper stickers to those awaiting entrance.

Soon the seats were filled to capacity and the field was covered with a sea of humanity. Most were wearing red… to make a statement that Missouri is a decidedly RED state.

While free tickets had been distributed in advance, the decision was made to open the venue to all comers for general admission as long as there was room; and there were a lot of unticketed “comers”! Some later arrivers were even turned away as there simply was no more room.

In stark contrast to the contrived and staged “rock-star” event of Obama’s acceptance speech, McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” bus pulled into the ballpark and John McCain, flanked by Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and his new VP pick, Sarah Palin, walked across the top of the dugout to a very modest podium.

Huckabee and Romney exchanged pleasantries, while making joking reference to their past differences, and highlighting their agreement on supporting McCain.

Then John McCain took the podium to enthusiastic cheers. He spoke only briefly, and modestly. No “I am HE” aura could be detected as McCain expressed appreciation and exuded humility. He spoke of Hurricane Gustav and of concern for the residents of Gulf Coastal Communities. He announced a paring back of the convention schedule, and his and the Party’s preparedness to be responsive to the storm’s circumstances. He then yielded the floor to Sarah Palin, who spoke eloquently, and powerfully. Palin’s character, experience and charm all came through and the crowd was thoroughly energized by her.

As goes Missouri, so goes the nation? Barack should be in a panic about now.

McCain Rally 119

ADVISORY: Political Storm Obama

Disclaimer:  This piece is political humor and parody.  (I don’t want any misunderstandings like the New Yorker recently experienced!)

 

Dateline:  July 2008

 

The National Climate Agency has been tracking a new political storm which is rapidly becoming so powerful it threatens to change the landscape of the entire nation!  Political Storm Obama is predicted by some to make landfall in November, triggering potential landslides.  Some are calling this a history maker.

 

First, some background on this gathering storm:

 

Political Storm Obama first formed off Africa as a minor depression.  This is the first time such a storm originated from there.  Then it loitered as it did some organizing before rapidly moving to the left of the Congressional Isle.

 

There, it spun aimlessly for a time – gaining strength and drifting ever further left.

 

Recently Obama’s track has become more difficult to predict, as it seems to zig and zag randomly left and right… even paying a visit to the Middle East.

 

Fortunately, not too much damage was done there.  Some fear a return visit – but strangely, others would welcome one, saying Obama might help their efforts to scour the eastern Mediterranean coast of what they classify as pollutants.

 

But for now, Obama continues its leftward path toward Washington, and if predictions hold and Obama continues on its present track, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will take a direct hit on January 20.  Damage is expected to be severe.

 

Despite coming ashore in the Nation’s Capitol – risk assessments are indicating widespread danger to refineries, offshore oil rigs in the Gulf, Nuclear Power Plants nationwide, and coal mines ranging from West Virginia to Wyoming!  This storm threatens our very way of life and could return us to the days of beeswax candles and buggy whips if it unleashes its full fury!  Healthcare providers are anticipating being taxed beyond their limits.  Utilities are also nervous about their ability to continue to provide adequate service.

 

Citizens are urged to prepare by stocking up on non-perishable food, firewood, and antidepressants.  They may need to hunker down for an extended period.

 

Some contrarian forecasters did try to offer an alternative, more optimistic scenario:  that Obama would run out of steam before coming ashore.  This scenario is generally ridiculed by the mainstream.

 

All agree, however, that while Obama’s track may waffle a bit, a real turn to the right is virtually impossible.

 

Copyright © 2008

Doug Edelman

Joe McCarthy Was RIGHT!

The so-called “McCarthy Era” is commonly pictured (and ridiculed) as a bunch of paranoid alarmists running around believing there was a Communist under every rock.

Sadly, they were right, and those Reds have crawled out from under their rocks and taken their seats in the halls of congress – under the auspices of the Democratic Party!

The cat was never more unceremoniously let out of the bag than with Maxine Waters’ recent pronouncement of her intention to SOCIALIZE… er.. ahh… TAKE OVER the oil industry!

Then, in response to the President’s call to open new areas to oil drilling, Reps Hinchey, Emanuel, Markey and others have all started making noises about government control of the industry.

Hinchey stated, “We should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.” Of course by “We” he meant Government. Not the American People. After all, the American People ALREADY own the refineries! The oil companies are PUBLICLY HELD companies. SHAREHOLDERS (the American People) DO own them. What Hinchey wants is an expansion of Government power by a TAKEOVER of the energy industry – just like Hillary wanted a Government takeover of the healthcare industry.

The Democrats are opposing “Drill Here, Drill Now”. Why?

Well, firstly they are beholden to the environmental lobby, which opposes any and all expansion of energy production even though it can be done in an environmentally responsible way.

More insidiously, the Democrats DO NOT want solutions! They are empowered by crises and by dependency. DOING anything that actually moves us toward SOLVING a problem weakens government… which is against their genetic makeup. Doing so during a presidential election campaign season is completely out of the question! So instead, they play wet blanket for any proposal which might actually address the problem.

The latest mantra is to oppose opening new areas for exploration is to state that the oil companies have millions of acres leased already that are not being exploited. Of course, much of the allotted property is not being exploited because it turned up dry. Also, some WOULD be producing if it were not for environmentalist challenges to drilling in areas already leased! They’ve been keeping the oil companies tied up in court battles instead of out drilling.

Interestingly, there ARE producing offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane Katrina blew some off station and ONTO SHORE. (Note to environmentalists: How much oil was spilled? NONE! Where was the environmental disaster that offshore drilling is supposed to cause?) It has taken time to get those rigs back online. Do those count in the Dems estimation of leased areas not producing?

I would call upon the oil companies to assemble and release facts and figures on the leased areas to show exactly what is being done and where. The public needs factual information to cut thru the obfuscations.

There are proven reserves, more easily exploited, that have never been opened to drilling. WHY would we NOT go get them? NO OTHER NATION on the face of the earth restricts its own ability to exploit their own natural energy resources!

Yes, we should pursue alternative energy… but while those technologies are developing the fact remains that the engine that is the United States runs on gasoline and is lubricated with oil.

Why would we continue our dependency on unfriendly foreign sources of oil when we can drill for our own. Why would we subject the planet to the environmental risks and impacts of SHIPPING billions of barrels of oil across the ocean on tanker ships, when we can PIPELINE it right to new refineries? Why won’t Democrats ALLOW us to reduce our dependency at a time when our economy is TANKING because of it?

Because it serves their political ends to allow us to suffer.

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.

Free Association

The farce that masquerades as the 2008 Presidential Campaign keeps astonishing me as to the depths to which some will sink, and the shallowness of character of some individuals!  This campaign has broken new ground in bar lowering!

So now “associations” are the big issue.  Barak Obama is so deeply involved with so many unsavory characters that his Teflon candidacy seems to have developed some scratches to which things are actually starting to stick.  Common folk on the street are actually starting to ASSOCIATE him with his associates!  I needn’t mention names – his associations are becoming common knowledge.

GASP!  He must respond!

The first line of defense is to deny that one’s associations don’t matter!  But if that’s true, then why has the Left spent 8 years seeking to damage Bush by attacking Rove, Chaney (and Halliburton), Libby, etc – and seeking to find any possible dirt on any of Bush’s “cronies”?

So next they attack McCain for accepting the endorsement of a Pastor who has made controversial statements about the Catholic Faith.  Pastor Hagee has made statements based on his understanding of biblical doctrine and theology, and has highlighted differences between his faith and the teachings and doctrines of Roman Catholicism – in sometimes insensitive and politically incorrect ways.  The Obama camp seeks to draw some equivalence between Hagee’s endorsement of McCain, and Obama’s long term relationship with another controversial pastor!

But one must draw a distinction between an “acquaintance” and an “associate”!  McCain was not a member of Hagee’s church, did not have a long-term close personal relationship, did not receive “spiritual counsel”, or consider him like family.  Hagee didn’t unite McCain and his wife in matrimony.  Hagee didn’t baptize his kids.  McCain did not place his children under Hagee’s  tutelage.  He did not contribute to Hagee’s church.  And when Hagee made subsequent controversial statements, McCain denounced Hagee and renounced his endorsement.  He didn’t defend Hagee as his “crazy uncle”.   The attempt to soil McCain with Hagee failed.

So now, an advisor to McCain who, as an attorney doing his job working for a law firm, had represented lobbyists, and the Left now claims this makes him somehow tainted.  This is somehow supposed to befoul McCain.

Is that the best the Obama camp can come up with?  Seems to me, on the “Associations” issue, Obama is clearly the loser!  His close friends, mentors, and 20 year associates are dubious at best, and odious in the minds of many.  One naturally questions Obama’s character, or at least his judgment, when presented with the preponderance of unsavory characters in Obama’s inner circle of close personal relationships.  You ARE known by the company you keep!

Obama’s response by attacking second-order associations – an associate of an associate - is not only specious and disingenuous, but is laughably irrelevant!  McCain is somehow tainted by an associate of an associate?  If memory serves, the entire population of the planet is supposed to be associated within 6 degrees of separation!  Is ANYONE untainted by second and third orders of relationship?  Such attacks only serve to make Obama seem desperate to counter his own relationship problems!

If associates of associates (and THEIR associates) is to become a criterion by which we judge the participants in our political system… then I can hardly wait for Kevin Bacon to do something unsavory – as this will instantly disqualify the entire Hollywood population from involving themselves in political life!


Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman
 
Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.

Congressional Attack Dogs Bark Up Wrong Tree!

 

Once again, in response to constituent outcry over gasoline prices, Oil Company executives have been hauled before Congress to get their posteriors ripped into by self-serving grandstanding Senators.

 

Senator Leahy went so far as to question the salary of the execs – as if this was in some way relevant.

 

But these self-appointed watchdogs are barking up the wrong tree.  The Oil Companies are not to blame for our pain at the pump!

 

Oil companies profit margins are around 10%.  They actually make only around 8 cents profit on a gallon of gas!  The station owner only makes around 2-3 cents per gallon.  Where does the rest go?  Part goes to the well owner – in most cases an OPEC nation.  A good portion is represented by the costs to transport the crude across the world, to refine it into gasoline, and to distribute it to the local gas station.  Some goes back into exploration, and R&D.  The rest is taxes!

 

Last year Exxon Mobile may have profited $40 Billion – but they paid $105 Billion in taxes!  Just WHO is the oil profiteer?  Our friendly watchdogs in Congress!

 

In truth, our high gas prices are due to a great number of influences, and MOST of them can be blamed directly on the environmentalists!  We can’t drill, we can’t build refineries, and we must produce boutique fuels.

 

ANWR:  Nope, can’t drill there – we might disturb the porcupine caribou.  But this species migrates over 1500 miles annually, and the enviro-wonks think our drilling in an area the size of Kennedy Airport (YES that’s all it would take!!) will threaten their existence!

 

Offshore:  OMG!  What if there’s a spill?  (Environmentalists will cry.)   But we have seen real-life demonstrations of the safety of offshore oil rigs.  Hurricane Katrina tore some existing rigs in the Gulf loose and tossed them onshore.  How much oil was spilled?  NONE!  After the storms, the rigs were repaired, towed back into place, and production began again!

 

On the other hand, our current oil needs are met by floating billions of barrels across the oceans on ships!  VERY environmentally friendly!  Hundreds of diesel burning ships traverse the planet continuously, each carrying an eco-disaster load of oil in its hold.   While shipping spills of the magnitude of the Exxon Valdez are rare – ships DO get into trouble on the high seas… and what is the first course of action for a ship in trouble?  Lighten the load by dumping cargo!  Now THERE’S a nightmare scenario for you!  (Remember, Exxon Valdez only spilled a PORTION of its cargo!)

 

Refineries:  We haven’t built a refinery since the Carter Administration due to environmentalist objection.  In the interim, a number of refineries have come off-line for a variety of reasons.   Even if our crude supply increases, our refining capacity is already running at or near 100% now.  And they have a further obstacle in their way…

 

Boutique Fuels:  Environmental regulations require region-specific formulations of fuel.  It’s illegal to sell fuel blended for one region in another region.  Refineries must predict demand for a particular blend – produce that blend, then RETOOL to produce another blend.  If they inaccurately predict demand – there may be a shortage in one region and a glut in another.  The surplus of one region can’t be tapped to meet the shortage in the other.  A price disparity occurs, with the price rising in the shortage area – and the next thing you know – they notice they’re paying more than their neighboring region, and they cry “GOUGING”!

 

But let’s get back to those “obscene” profits of the Oil Companies.

 

WHO gets those profits?  No doubt the execs make a good salary – and they deserve it!  There are only a handful of companies who manage to provide the needs of the oil hungry planet!  Individuals who can manage such enterprises, which operate on such a massive planetary scale efficiently and profitably, are worthy of a premium salary.  But all the exec salaries combines represent a very small percentage of the companies’ earnings – so where does it go?  Well, apart from reinvestment into exploration, research & development etc… it goes to the SHAREHOLDERS.  Virtually every mutual fund has some of its money in oil… so if you have an IRA or a 401K, you yourself probably reap some oil profits.

 

So what else is driving our gas prices up?

 

TAXES:  Federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gas exceed 75 cents in some locales!

 

Speculation:  Commodity futures are traded based on EXPECTED prices – and uncertainties drive prices UP.  Given our mid-east oil dependency… middle east turmoil or instability increases uncertainty.

 

Weak Dollar:  Global economic conditions have weakened the dollar making it less valuable abroad.  Since we are dependent on FOREIGN sources of oil – it takes more dollars to pay the same value in foreign currency – so even if THEY were charging the same price in their own currency as before… it would cost more in dollars than it did!

 

Supply and Demand:  Yes, real economic fundamentals are in play!  As emerging nations are entering the 21st century – their demand for oil products is growing exponentially!  The US is not the only HUGE consumer of oil.  Africa, India, China and other nations are growing their economies, and their energy requirements have exploded.  And while we’re no longer the only game in town, we can’t just waltz into Saudi Arabia and tell the Prince “what’s what” and demand increased production or lower prices.  They can tell us to pound sand, because there are other markets happy to pay the price and buy the oil!  Until we begin to dramatically increase domestic production and reduce our dependency on foreign sources to meet our demand – we will remain at the mercy of less than friendly nations who can now afford to cut us off entirely if they desire, as they have adequate alternative markets to sell to!

 

The time has come to tell the enviro-wackos to just shut up, and to drill in ANWR, drill offshore off Alaska, California, in the Gulf, and off Florida.  (We’d BETTER get to it in the Gulf and Caribbean before our environmentally responsible friend and neighbor CUBA lays claim to all the oil in that region!)  We must build refineries.  We must pursue technologies to extract oil from oil shale.  We must build nuclear plants to provide electricity without burning fossil fuels.  If an initiative was announced to accomplish these items within 5 years – we’d see oil prices drop OVERNIGHT, as those very futures traders would forsee reduced prices down the road.

Universal Healthcare Care CAN’T Work!

There is no denying that healthcare today is a mess. With all the regulations, mandates and litigation CYA going on, there’s little wonder why costs are skyrocketing. But is “Universal Healthcare” the answer? Is it even AN answer?

Today’s health insurance industry bears little resemblance to the “Major Medical” that I grew up with! Once upon a time, health insurance covered “MAJOR MEDICAL” expenses… Surgery. Hospitalization. And it was affordable. Today we have come to expect first dollar coverage for a doc visit for our kid’s sniffles!

To understand the problem, we must examine WHAT IS INSURANCE?

Insurance is a system whereby the risks and costs are spread across the pool of the insured. Premiums are underwritten, according to representative risk, such that the sum total of premiums collected will exceed the sum total of benefits paid out against the risk claims.

This works well in such environments as automobile or homeowners insurance, as the risk of a loss is low enough that the majority of policyholders do not make substantial claims – so the pool of premium moneys collected is well able to cover the costs of the claims made – and still provide a profit to the underwriter. The policyholder pays the premium for the security in knowing that, should a loss occur, there is coverage. But he hopes never to need it… and the underwriter hopes so too!

Health insurance also once worked under this model. The risk of MAJOR medical expense was considered remote enough to offer an underwriting opportunity for profit. Insurance companies rated an individual’s risk based on his health conditions and assessed a premium based on the underwriter’s assessment of risk. And some who were deemed too risky and were not offered coverage. This kept premiums reasonable as the risks were minimized.

Over the years, however, the government got involved in health insurance – mandating coverage for more high-risk people; mandating coverage for previously excluded conditions etc. Also employers began offering health insurance as an employment benefit. Costs were initially contained because “group” policies enlarged the pool of the insured. But soon there was demand for more services to be covered. Office visits. Prescriptions. Claim benefit costs began to rise, and so did premiums.

Thanks to greater and greater pressures from Government, the “Health Management Organization” or HMO was born. Suddenly “managed care” came on the scene – as an attempt to keep claims costs down and keep premiums in line. But, predictably, beneficiaries balked at having their healthcare choices limited by the evil HMO. They wanted to see WHO they wanted, WHEN they wanted. They wanted the CARE they wanted in the WAY they wanted. But they wanted the insurance companies to pay for it.

This is where the insurance model for healthcare began to break down. If EVERYONE is claiming benefits, then the cost of services to EVERYONE must be paid by EVERYONE… which means that there are no premium payers who are not claiming benefits. There is no pool of premiums being collected from which to pay out the larger claims! The very premise of insurance – the spreading of risk across the pool of insured is violated if there is a certainty of claim for all the insured!

So now, those dangerous words… “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.

The proposal of Single-Payer Universal Healthcare from the government is seen by some utopian pie-in-the-sky Liberals as the panacea for all healthcare ills. But it is doomed from the start!

The only way to pay for universal care is to collect the entire cost of all healthcare from the pool of the covered… ie every one of us!

Now, we all know that the government is highly inefficient… it takes them $3 to effectively spend $1.

Given that currently healthcare represents between 15 and 20% of our entire economy – that means that the government will have to receive in taxes about 50% of our entire gross domestic product in order to meet current levels of healthcare spending.

And what of the quality of care? I pose one question: Given a choice, would you prefer a private hospital or a VA hospital?

Do you trust the Government to administer your healthcare? The same government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare? What evidence do you have that they can keep such a program afloat, let alone run it efficiently and equitably?

No, for all its faults and foibles, I’ll continue to rely on the free-enterprise system for my health needs – even with its excessive costs. I will make my own choices about when to see whom and for what. I will make my own cost-containment choices. And I will pray for the defeat of any politician who would try to take my choices from me.

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.

Thank You, Hillary!

I never thought I’d ever utter or write these words, but “Bravo, Hillary Clinton!”

Senator Clinton’s debate performance in Philadelphia was her best piece of work of the campaign. She nicely sliced and diced Obama and served him up with a side of rice! So many clips can be culled from the debate for use as a McCain campaign ad against Senator Obama, that the RNC owes Hillary a consulting fee!

(For that matter, she also let a few lines pass her lips which could be used by McCain if, by some turn of events, Senator Clinton winds up with the Democratic nomination! A double gift. Her reference to her own “baggage” and her “embarrassment” over the sniper snafu are gems that also can pepper McCain campaign ads. But I digress!)

Hillary’s greatest contribution from this debate, to my mind, was her correctly redirecting the emphasis of the Wright controversy AWAY from the inflammatory statements of Wright, and onto Obama’s underlying core beliefs and philosophies! This has long been my frustration with the discussion in the conservative press concerning Pastor Wright. By focusing on the outrageous statements themselves, the forest is lost for the incessant examination of the trees!

As we should have learned from the Clinton presidency, character DOES matter!

While there are those who defend Obama, stating that Obama should not be tainted with “guilt by association”, when you are running for the highest office in the most powerful nation in the free world, you must be prepared to endure and survive scrutiny under the heading, “You are known by the company you keep.” And the theme song for Senator Obama could well be “Bad Company”!

Regardless of the actual statements made by Rev Wright – one need only understand that the church is founded upon the Black Liberation Theology of James Cone, and holds as foundational tenets the divisive, racist, and Marxist doctrines of that movement!

In any church, one may occasionally find statements made by the pastor with which they may not agree. It would not raise an eyebrow to choose to overlook these statement and maintain membership in that church, if they find the preponderance of the teaching from the pulpit to be otherwise consistent with their core beliefs and the church’s statement of faith.

If, however, the statement of faith and core beliefs of the church are inconsistent with an individual’s core beliefs and world view… one would rightly expect that individual to seek another church! And conversely, it would not be unreasonable for one to question the credibility of one who remains in a church for 20 years, cites the pastor as “mentor” and “advisor” and who makes the bulk of his “charitable contributions” to that church, if he claims that his core beliefs are at odds with the stated and published core philosophy and foundational tenets of that church! If his core beliefs conflict with the foundation on which the church stands, why would he allow his kids to be baptized into it? Why would he refuse to “disown” the pastor in the face of outrageous statements which are CONSISTENT with the church’s foundational teachings? It is simply irrational!

In defense of Pastor Wright, the argument is made; “But we must consider the ‘good work’ the church has done.” Poppycock!! The same argument is used to defend Farrakhan, Hamas in Gaza, etc. Farrakhan’s support of black families and encouragement to succeed are used to defend his racist and antisemetic statements. Hamas’s “humanitarian” aid to the Palestinians of Gaza are used to defend their launching rockets into Israel. Even Hitler was praised for his improvement of the infrastructure in Germany! He made the trains run on time! (Never mind that they were making regularly scheduled stops at death camps!)

Barack Obama entered the race for the nomination having flown under the radar for most of his career in politics. He cast many “PRESENT” votes on issues of significance rather than taking a stand one way or another, which he might later have to explain or be held to account for. His campaign touted the bumper sticker slogan of “change”, appealing to the dissatisfaction with the status-quo… but offering little in the way of a clear outline of the “change” he expected to usher in. Obama was a charismatic character, a man of color, and he was a gifted orator. Most importantly, he presented as a blank page – with no “baggage” or “history” to DISlike. Like a movie screen, he simply allowed others to project their hopes, desires, frustrations and fears upon – and he simply reflected them. He wanted to run as “plain vanilla”! (Forgive the obvious but unintentional mixed metaphor!) But, as Kerry and Gore before him, there was no real depth. He was a better speaker than his predecessors, but still offered little more than a cardboard cut-out standing up as the “I’m not HIM” (or the “I’m not HER”) candidate!

But, thanks to the diligent investigating by some on the Right, the “real Obama” has begun to be unearthed and revealed. And thanks to Hillary’s tenacious clinging to her candidacy, and exploiting these unearthed associations, Obama’s true character is being revealed. The “reflectivity” of the Obama blank screen is being degraded as the screen begins to take on Barack’s own true colors.

Obama’s character and judgement are being scrutinized. His associations, statements and actions are disconcerting, as they are surprisingly coherent and thematic! His “mentor” is a Black Liberation Theologist who Damns America. He is “close” with a former Weather Underground Terrorist who declared war on the US and regrets that his bombings didn’t go far enough. He refused to salute the flag, or to wear one. He has ties with other “pastors” of questionable character. He has unsavory relationships like Rezko. He makes “elitist” statements about “bitter” folk in the heartland.

A recent caller to Crane Durham, who was guest hosting the Randy Tobler radio talk show, made a very astute observation:

“Hillary Clinton’s troubles come when she lies. But Obama’s troubles start when he tells the truth!” He elaborated by pointing out that when Obama speaks off the cuff and reveals what he REALLY thinks – we get a glimpse into who he really is… and maybe he’s not someone we like very much.

The Blame For Rising Gas Prices

I first published an article on this subject in April 2006 – two years ago… but with some minor updates it is still as true today as it was then – and to my mind, it bears repeating!  So here goes:

There is no denying the pain felt at the pump as gas break thru the $3.00 per Gallon mark. The life blood of this nation IS oil, whether we like or acknowledge it or not. So when gas prices rise there is a predictable rush to blame someone. Democrats are quick to blame the oil companies for "gouging" or for “obscene profiteering”.  Are they right? Sensing blood in the water, the Dems are ready to levy new punitive and confiscatory taxes on the oil companies. Have they considered the "Law of Unintended Consequences'? A "Windfall Profit Tax" to punish the oil companies for making a profit? Let's look a bit closer.

Yes, the oil companies operate in a world of big numbers. Their profits are in the billions. But is this obscene? Think of the trillions of gallons of oil our nation consumes (not to mention the burgeoning demand of other nations). They are meeting an incredible demand, and doing so with a profit to costs ratio in the 9 to 10% range. Few businesses can operate at all on that small a margin. It's hardly an obscene rate of return.

And who gets those profits? The shareholders do. How many shares are in circulation?? I wouldn't dare speculate… but can you name a single mutual fund out there that doesn't have SOME of it's assets in oil? Do you have a 401K or IRA? YOU are probably an oil profiteer!

What would happen to the economy if suddenly the value of every mutual fund in America were to have to absorb the impact of confiscatory taxes on the oil companies?? The Law of Unintended Consequences!

The oil companies bear the costs of purchasing all that oil – much of if from less than friendly sources abroad, transporting it halfway around the world, refining it, meeting governmental regulations for upwards of 25 different custom blended formulations of gasoline – not to mention motor oil, home heating oil, kerosene and other petrochemicals, and the demands of the plastics industry. They must then transport and distribute these products around the country. Getting crude oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia – turning it into a legal-to-sell-in-Podunk blend of gasoline – and then getting to the Podunk Gas-n-Wash on Main Street is not exactly an inexpensive proposition.

Some Democrats have even proposed a NEW ADDITIONAL $.50 per gallon gas tax!  Can you imagine the economic impact of that “giant sucking sound” of our dollars? 

It seems to me that the oil companies ARE INDEED holding the line on gas prices in some measure. Think about this:  When oil was $20 a barrel, we were quite accustomed to gasoline around $1 a gallon. Why then wouldn't gasoline break thru the $3 a gallon mark by the time the cost of crude went over $65? But oil is now over $100 a barrel, and the average pump price nationwide is just breaking the $3 mark. Am I the only one who recognizes there is some level of restraint built in there?   Do the math!  The cost of crude has gone up 5 times since we saw dollar-a-gallon gas, yet we're just now surpassing $3 at the pump. And while sudden oil price rises make news, several times in the last year there were precipitous drops in the price – which, while temporary (all pricing in this market is temporary!) these drops received little press.

So who CAN we blame for our pump-pain? There is plenty of blame to go around.

Did you realize that for every gallon sold, more money goes to the Federal, State and Local Tax coffers than to the bottom line of the oil companies? Who is the big bad oil profiteer? Who’s “gouging” and reaping a “windfall”?  While the government profits MORE than the oil companies, they don't have to find, buy, transport, refine, or distribute anything. And they don’t just place direct taxes on the gas. They also tax the company's profits. Blame government taxes.
India, China, Korea and other nations have finally moved into the 21st century. As their infrastructure grows and their economies expand, their demand for oil increases. OPEC no longer feels any pressure to keep prices in line, as we are hardly their only or even their biggest market anymore! If WE drop our consumption – they'll just sell more to other nations who are happy to pay the price. Europe has been paying over $4.00/gallon for years. We have enjoyed prices artificially lower than the market price in the rest of the world for a long time. As the world's economies become increasingly global, what makes us think we can continue to get discount prices when other markets pay full price? Blame the emerging nations!

Did you know that government regulations on gasoline formulations require the oil companies to create numerous custom blends that can only be sold in specific regions? The companies must predict the demand in each of these markets so their refineries can produce one blend for just so long, and then retool to produce another. If they miscalculate, there will be a glut in one area and a shortage in another. A glut for one regional blend cannot be tapped to meet a shortage in another, because the formulations may not be sold across regions. So instead the price drops in the region with the glut, and rises in the region of the shortage. Then the people in the shortage area will note their price is higher than perhaps their neighboring state… and they begin to cry "Gouging!" Blame the environmentalists who pushed for the boutique blends regulations.

We have not built a new refinery since the Carter Administration, yet for a variety of reasons several have come off line in that time. With reduced refining capacity, the burdens of boutique formulations, and environmental regulations – even if we have adequate crude supplies, heavy demand outstrips the capacity to turn that crude into marketable products. Blame the environmentalists who won't let us build refineries!

Our dependence on foreign sources of crude makes us beholden to the pricing whims of nations not always friendly to our interests. Where is the oil we import coming from? We import our oil from the Islamic nations of the Middle East, along with Venezuela and Mexico primarily. Not exactly our blood-brother allies. On the other hand, environmental groups quash every attempt to develop our domestic reserves. Alaska? Florida? California? There's plenty of oil to extract, but the environmentalists won't let us drill. Once we pay the price at the foreign well-head we still have to transport all this crude halfway around the world on Diesel Burning ships! Very eco-friendly!

The environmentalists complain that drilling in ANWR might disturb some native caribou, yet one square mile of tundra looks like another… they can walk a mile away, and not even see a drilling rig! These Eco-Nuts worry about the possibility of pipeline spills – yet existing pipelines have excellent records in that regard. If a spill should occur, it is always of limited scope as turning a valve upstream from a rupture cuts the flow. On the other hand, floating billions of barrels of crude across the oceans in tankers isn't exactly without risk. The possibility of dropping the entire load of a tanker is absolutely frightening. Of course, a wreck of the magnitude of the Exxon Valdez is rare – but ships can and do get into trouble on the high seas. And what is the first line of defense a ship's captain has against foundering in angry weather? Yes, lightening the ship by jettisoning cargo! Now THERE is an environmentally friendly thought! Blame the environmentalists who won't let us drill for our own resources!

As in ANY commodity trading, uncertainty and instability raise prices. The current fears regarding Iran's activities and other Mideast turmoil certainly casts doubts and uncertainties on the markets. This drives up prices. Blame the jihadists who can't coexist with anyone else in this world!

Oil is a worldwide commodity, with worldwide influences on its price. There is no single culprit in the rising price of oil.  Blaming the oil companies themselves is myopic, and punishing them is counterproductive.

We MUST develop our own domestic sources – environmentalists notwithstanding. We must reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil. We must build new refineries. We must reduce consumption. We must encourage alternative fuels. We must remove the disincentives to explore for new oil deposits.

The machine that is the United States runs on gas, and is lubricated with oil. The oil companies are very efficient at delivering those commodities to us despite numerous obstacles as listed above. But putting more obstacles in their way is not going to get more oil here, and won't make it any cheaper.

MELTDOWN!

The sky is falling! Our economy is collapsing! It’s fiscal Armageddon!

Well, that’s the perception out there, anyway. And THAT’s scary – because when the public is in a panic, the Government feels it has to DO something. And we all know that the most dangerous words you can hear are, “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

Unfortunately, there is a fundamental disconnect with economic reality which is inherent in Government.

When the economy slows, the first response has been for the Fed to lower interest rates. Great. All that does is encourage the assumption of more debt!

Then, when things get bad enough, they put together an election year “stimulus package” to “rebate” some tax money. Teriffic. Then the federal government goes further into debt to mail out checks which people use up in a month or 2. It might gain a few incumbents some additional votes, but doesn’t really help the economy fundamentally.

What people don’t realize, and the Government knows but won’t say, is that the entire economic structure of the US is a house of cards built on IOUs. That dollar bill in your pocket isn’t even MONEY… it’s a promise to pay… and IOU… a Federal Reserve (promissory) NOTE. Since we left the gold-standard, our currency is backed by nothing except the credit rating of the Fed! The Fed isn’t even a Government agency… it’s a PRIVATE organization! The Federal Reserve creates currency out of nothing, and LENDS it to the government AT INTEREST! Talk about a bubble doomed to pop at some point!

Then the Fed loans money to banks, at interest. They loan money to the public, at interest. They’re all making a profit (as long as the money itself is perceived to have value!).

But the rest of the world is starting to shun the US dollar in favor of other currencies. On the worldwide market, the dollar’s value is declining.

Concurrently, our Helpful Government noticed a few years back, that many minority folk were not qualifying for mortgage loans. Of course this was a factor of their credit worthiness – and not of their ethnicities… but our Helpful Government was not satisfied with the fact that some people can’t AFFORD a mortgage. They insisted that the financial markets find ways to get more of these “less than qualified” individuals into home-ownership. And so was born the “sub-prime mortgage” market. We all know what happens when you squeeze someone with minimal credit worthiness into a house they can barely afford at introductory rates which will adjust upward!

So, what’s the fix? Sadly – the real fix will probably never happen. But I’ll propose it here anyway.

First, return to the gold standard and eliminate the Federal Reserve. Give our money REAL INTRINSIC value backed by gold and quit creating money out of nothing. Of course, some politicians who even considered making this proposal a reality have met sudden ends!

Second, make the tax cuts permanent, and reduce taxes further! As Bush, Reagan and Kennedy have proven, reducing tax RATES stimulates the economy, generating growth and expansion, and resulting in GAINS in tax REVENUES. Tax cuts don’t cost the treasury… they increase it!

Third, reduce or eliminate as many “social programs” as possible. The government is a horribly inefficient transfer agent… it takes it $3 to spend $1 on ANYTHING. That’s $2 it takes from you and me just to deliver a third dollar that they take from you to give to someone else! Government MUST begin to understand they cannot provide womb to the tomb “care” for people. Instead, people will be better able to provide for themselves if the economy is strong, and sound enough to produce gainful employment, and the tax burden is eased enough to allow the people to use their money to their own benefit.

Fourth, enforce our borders and immigration laws. Legal immigrants and citizens WILL do most any job for a reasonable wage… if you don’t believe it, tune in Mike Rowe’s “Dirty Jobs”! The massive influx of illegals is not only a security risk, it is an economic rocket barrage!

Fifth, implement term limits on our Federal Legislators. As long as one can make a lifelong career out of being a lawmaker, doling out goodies from the federal cookiejar for re-election votes will remain a problem. Until intrenched lawmakers are purged out and we have a new crop of Congressmen and Senators who understand they are in for a time, to serve the public good, and then they return to private life… the other 4 proposals are virtually impossible to implement!

No, even the implementation of all the above will not bring about a utopia without ups and downs… the economy is far more complicated than these simplistic proposals can address – however these are fundamental flaws built into the very fabric of our economic infrastructure. Without repairing these, there will always be the risk of economic shipwrecks.

Obamelot? NOT!

In all the ecstatic love-fest frenzy the left is having with Barak Obama, they have recently been invoking the mystique of “Camelot” - that storied infatuation with JFK and Jackie – and drawing a parallel.

Well, ‘scuze me, but I remember JFK – and Barak… you’re no Jack Kennedy!

Let’s look at JFK for a moment. I’ll leave it to the reader to conclude whether Obama holds a candle to or resembles the late John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Kennedy served the nation in the military before entering politics. Instead of using family influence to AVOID combat, he used it to secure a fighting assignment in the Solomon Islands. A young Navy LTJG, he commanded the PT-109 and became a true hero – leading his crew to survival and rescue.

While he could have returned home after the PT-109 incident, he chose to continue to contribute to the war effort. He then commanded PT-59, and helped rescue around 50 marines.

(A bit more substantial and substantiated a story than that of Kerry’s 3 purple hearts, eh?)

Articulate and well educated, he penned the story into a book, “PT-109”.

In 1946 he ran for Congress and was elected. While generally supportive of the Party Line, he was openly critical of Truman for what he perceived as a weak stance on the Communist Chinese. Later he became a Massachusetts Senator. During his Senatorial tenure, he had back surgery and during his lengthy recovery he wrote “Profiles in Courage”, examining a number of individuals he admired and learned from. Most of the profiled individuals were politicians willing to take a strong, if unpopular stand for what they believed in.

As President, Kennedy’s policies are not what one would associate with today’s Left. At his Inauguration, he exhorted “Ask not what your country can do for you…” (Today’s Left encourages a nanny-state dependency!)

He understood the threat of advancing Communism. He supported a strong military, and used them in foreign intervention – committing troops to Vietnam. He confronted the Soviets, and won the Cuban Missile Crisis showdown forcing Khrushchev to blink in that game of Nuclear Brinksmanship. What politician of the liberal ideation today would have the cajones to stand up to today’s threats at JFK did?

JFK put TAX CUTS in place, in order to stimulate the economy and increase federal revenues! Read the text of his April 20, 1961 speech at http://www.nationalcenter.org/JFKTaxes1961.html.

Obama, on the other hand is a green Senator with a gift for eloquent bumper-sticker speeches. He advocates pulling nuclear force off the table, and negotiating with terrorist states. He not only hasn’t served – which isn’t necessarily a requirement for President – but refuses to salute the flag, wear one, and isn’t proud of our nation! What would the young LTJG Kennedy have thought of Mr. Obama?

Economics 101 For Obama & Hillary

Federal_budget_06

As we evaluate the proposals of the Presidential Candidates, one must remember that the Government PRODUCES nothing, EARNS nothing and HAS nothing that it doesn’t first APPROPRIATE from the producing public. Whatever it GIVES to someone, it must TAKE from someone – in THAT sense the government IS a Zero Sum Game!! The more the government gives to the dependent, the more they must take from the producers. If you’re a producer – watch your wallet. If you’re a dependent – GET A JOB!

All the figures below come from directly from the Budget of the United States:

Medicare & Social Security ALONE account for nearly 1/3 of the entire budget. Medicaid is nearly another 7%. Education/Employment/Social Services accounts for yet another 4.5%. That totals around 45% of the ENTIRE BUDGET for just these giveaways! The true business of the Government takes around HALF the current budget, and would operate at a significant surplus (and would need less revenue) without these giveaways! And with a surplus, we would pay down the debt and eliminate the interest payments which eat another 8.5% of the annual budget!

The ENTIRE NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET is less than 20% of the annual budget, and most of that would be spent to maintain the standing military whether at war or peace. (So when liberals complain that the Iraq War is breaking us, they’re talking about maybe a couple hundred billion out of 3+ Trillion, or like 8% of the budget.)

International Affairs – INCLUDING FOREIGN AID represents 1% of the budget. Transportation is under 3%. Justice System 1.5%. Community Development, around 2%. Science & Technology, under 1%. THESE are the real business of Government, in addition to the provision of our defense and security.

Even without adding billions in new social programs as proposed by both Obama and Clinton, our economic fate is tenuous at best in a shifting demographic. As the number of dependent people increases, the balance point shifts on the teeter totter, and soon the dependent will outweigh the producers – at which point the whole house of cards falls.

Memo to Disappointed, Frustrated, Angry and Disgruntled Conservatives:

It is true McCain is NOT the ideal candidate. But he does appear to be the nominee, and he DOES stand with us 70% of the time. So take a few deep breaths and follow this line of reasoning:

While McCain's contrarian 30% may give us apoplexy, we must remember that Obama and Clinton are Fabian Socialists (please Google it) who would be a 100% disaster for our country.

Therefore, Conservatives should not feel that they would be “violating their conservative principals” by holding their nose and casting their vote for McCain!

You're not ENDORSING him by casting such a vote. Instead, you're UPHOLDING your conservative principals by DENYING the Presidency to Obama or Clinton!

Sitting out the election would be an inexcusable failure to USE your vote to PREVENT electing a dangerous Leftist. Casting a vote for “bad” is preferable to passively permitting the election of “worse”! It has been said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.”

But feel free to express your anger toward the GOP leadership which has moved the party to the Left! I personally have ceased all financial support of the RNC (and have told them so!), resigned from the Pachyderms - leaving my position as Vice President of my local chapter, and have declared myself to be an Independent. But I will continue to support any (R) candidate who espouses conservative positions.

Most importantly, we conservatives must bear in mind that while the President wields significant power... a conservative Congress can keep ANY President in check - especially if they have a Veto-Proof majority. Therefore, we must vigorously, energetically and enthusiastically support conservatives running for the House and Senate!