Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World

Eagle

Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

NOTE: This is a BLOG page. If you run off articles before reading them, please note
the entire content will likely be more pages than you want to print.

Newt: Liar, liar; pants on fire.
Feb. 1, 2012—So desperate to win the GOP Florida primary as he began slipping in the polls, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich launched what has proven to be a false robocall triggered by information provided to Gingrich from Democratic New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind. Hikind is an Orthodox Jew—and a Gingrich supporter who gave Gingrich the fodder. Like many people who get part of the story right and embellish what they don't have, Hikind said what Romney did during the Massachusetts 2003 financial crisis was "insensitive." based on Jeffrey Goldstein, a now-retired head of a kosher nursing home in Massachusetts who was interviewed for a report by the Rupert Murdock-owned New York Post.

The Massachusetts legislature proposed a new spending bill in 2003 that contained a $600 thousand addition to the budget of the State's nursing homes. The money was not designated to provide kosher food for Holocaust victims. It was just general fund money.

But, that's not how Goldstein or Hikind saw it. Hikind said that Romney apparently thought, "...let them eat pork, or let them eat something else. If you're kosher, you're not eating anything else. It's just that simple. Why Romney didn't get it at that time is disappointing and quite shocking to me."

Without checking the facts Gingrich ran with it—and put his name on it as being approved by him. As Florida voters prepared for Tuesday, Jan. 31's vote, the voice mail message they received via robo-caller said, "As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney's compassion for our seniors?" First question: why did Gingrich run the robo-call smear? Because Florida has a very large Jewish population.

In a campaign stop in Pensacola where there is only a marginal Jewish population, Gingrich began beating the "you can't trust a Mormon" drum by saying: "...[as governor, Romney] imposed on Catholic hospitals provisions against their religious strictures. And Romney as governor eliminated kosher food from retired Jewish senior citizens on Medicaid, and he has no understanding of the importance of conscience and importance of religious liberty in this country."

First, there is no truth in the statement about Romney personally imposing anti-religious regulations on Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts (which is implied). Romney actually did the opposite.

Granted, he campaigned on a pro-choice platform, and could have obligated Catholic hospitals to provide patients with the "morning after" pill or other forms of birth control, or forced Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or have to fend off possible lawsuits. In point of fact, Romney—whose views on abortion changed rapidly after winning the job as governor—regularly exempted Catholic hospitals from dispensing birth control devices. However, a provision in a law enacted by the State legislature in the summer of 2005 clashed with an existing law allowing Romney to issue waivers, and he was advised by Paul Cote, his Health Commissioner that the new law, forcing hospitals to dispense contraceptive devises or birth control information, barred him from exempting Catholic hospitals. His hands were tied by the State Legislature. Of course, since it took me less than two minutes to find that information, Gingrich very likely knew that when he smeared Romney.

Now, back to denying Jewish Holocaust survivors $5 for a kosher meal. It's a bogus story, too. First, the decision to cut kosher meals was made by nursing home managers or owners for political purposes. During periods of austerity, cutting budgets becomes the rule of the day. Everyone does it. It's the "Law of the Pocket." When your pockets are empty, you prioritize spending. Usually the first adjustment you make in your home is meat loaf instead of roast beef, and navy beans and corn bread instead of southern-fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy. The nursing homes did the same thing. They substituted frozen kosher entrees for home-cooked kosher meals. The kosher Jews were never deprived of kosher meals.

During tight financial times in Massachusetts in 2002-2003 (which is likely why one of the ten most liberal States elected a moderate Republican), several nursing homes in the States weighed cutting costs by closing their kosher kitchens instead of making cuts in staffing or in other areas, and decided that it was a good business decision to close the kosher kitchens and use prepackaged kosher foods or, when they could, provide catered kosher meals (think of them as kosher carryout delivered to the nursing homes). It worked, and no "Holocaust Jews" were deprived of kosher meals.

In addition, the liberal media in Massachusetts was only to happy to pass the "blame" to the Republican governor, inflaming the citizens of Massachusetts for Romney's refusing to spend five lousy bucks on a kosher meal for some holocaust survivors. They fanned the fire and built the sympathy needed for the State legislature to push an extra $600 thousand through. And, by the time the media, and the Democrats, got through with the spin, Romney appeared to have vetoed a bill to deny kosher food to holocaust survivors. And, you can bet Obama has a recording of the robocall to use this fall. Bet he keeps Newt's name on it. Had Newt Gingrich taken five more minutes to check, he would have learned what really happened to the holocaust survivors' kosher meals. But then, in this case, I expect he did vet the story, but the version in the robocall was just too good to pass up.

Remember this about Newt Gingrich— a man who will lie to the voters to win his job, won't hesitate to continue to lie—with even more egregious falsehoods—to keep the job, and to profit from it, once he gets elected. A man who will lie to win can't be trusted to govern.

Obama funds job creation of a green energy
startup electric car company—in Finland
Jan. 1, 2012—Like his quid pro quo $535 million loan to Solyndra to build jobs in America by financing the risky, "destined-to-fail" solar panel startup green energy ventures of his friends and campaign donors, the Obama Administration has been campaigning on job creation. In the Solyndra LLC case,Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser was both an Obama bundler and a Solyndra investor. In fact, he was heavily-invested in Solyndra even though when it was revealed that he was an Obama bundler, he denied that he was personally involved with Solyndra. Solyndra alone should be enough to insure impeachment hearings not only of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, but both Vice President Joe Biden and White House occupant Barack Obama. Providing half billion dollar quid pro quos in return for major campaign contributions translates into accepting a bribe. Accepting a legally-defined bribe, like offering one, is a felony. Felonies are impeachable offenses. But, since every member of Congress commits the same crime everytime it inserts an earmark in a piece of legislation, it goes without saying to no member of the House will impeach any politician, nor will any member of the Senate find them guilty, for offering or accepting a bribe.

Obama's green energy stimulus program is beginning to look more and more like nothing more than the usual political business-as-usual in the nation's capital. Which, of course, makes Obama no less corrupt than the most corrupt Washington insider. Stimulus money, it would seem, does much more than stimulate green jobs in the Obama Administration. It stimulates a new round of campaign contributions. Which is how politicians amass multimillion dollar war chests.

The Center for Public Integrity's iWatch News reported that the Energy Department invested one billion dollars in two politically-connected California electric carmakers (with the funds coming out of a $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program legislated by the Reid-Pelosi 111th Congress). One of the first recipients in 2009 was Fisker Automotive which is backed by a venture capital company owned in part by former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. (an Obama donor). The other is Tesla Motors whose major backers are Obama bundlers Larry Page and Sergy Brin, also backed by Gore. If Page and Brin's names sounds familiar it's because they are the co-founders of Google. Gore's venture capital company, General Investment Management, is partnered with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers which specializes in clean technology investments.

Two years ago Obama set aside $25 billion from Bush-43's subprime mortgage bailout legislation and used a chunk of the money from the funds set aside for the Resolution Trust Company to buy up foreclosed subprime mortgages to free up credit, to bail out the auto industry. At that time, critics denounced Obama's loan program for green energy cars, saying that investing in the American automotive industry was a waste of money because manufacturing cars was a business that wasn't going to survive in the United States.

On Oct. 20, 2009 Biden held a photo-op in a shuttered General Motors plant in Wilmington, Delaware heralding the $528.7 million government loan to Fisker which, Biden claimed, would transform the boarded-up GM factory into an active production line for high-end electric sportscars. With him in the photo-op was a Danish businessman from California, Henrik Fisker, and Delaware Gov. Jack Markell. Fisker said that eventually Fisker would employ 5,000 US workers—2,000 factory workers and about 3,000 at suppliers throughout the country. Fisker paid $18 million for the GM plant which produced the Pontiac Solstice and the Saturn Sky before the "Obama/GM-Chrysler auto dealership downsizing." Those 2,000 US employees, promised in 2009 and again in the fall of 2011 appear, thus far, to be about 40 US employees in the engineering and electro-mechanical fields who should be interviewing for those jobs now, and who were supposed to have been hired before Thanksgiving, 2011. The 2000 employees? They're apparently all in Finland at the moment.

Biden promised that very quickly, laid-off auto workers would be producing the next generation of American luxury sportscars—the $103 thousand Fisker Karma. .(Government subsidies will bring the "out-of-pocket" price of the car down to $40,000 after tax credits.) The Fisker loan had two parts. One hundred sixty-nine million dollars of the loan was to support tooling for Fisker's first electric car, the Karma, in Irvine, California. The balance, $359 million, was theoretically being used in the Wilmington, Delaware assembly plant to develop Fisker's pollution-free Nina electric.

To date, Fisker Automotive produced 239 vehicles, all of which were been sold in Europe. Two cars have been delivered in the United States. One of them to movie star Leonardo DiCaprio. The downside of this article is not that only 239 were produced at a cost to American taxpayers of $2,200,000 each, but that the Karmas were made by the Finland auto maker, Valmet,.with a net result of zero jobs in the United States. The Karma's hybrid system copies the Chevrolet Volt. Which raises the question why the Obama Administration felt compelled to finance competition for General Motors which, theoretically, the taxpayers now own? Other, that is, than as a quid pro quo payback to a major donor who can be counted on to support Obama's reelection bid this year since he will likely need the taxpayers' largess again next year..

All 239 of the Karmas built in Finland were recalled due to a flaw with a hose clamp that prevents coolant leaks inside the battery compartment. The flaw could trigger electrical shorts and create what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] referred to as "thermal events."

Once Fisker received their $528.7 million loan, they used those funds, and their guarantees from the Obama Administration to raise $650 million in private sector funds. Since GM is having problems finding people to buy the Volt, it's not likely the Karma is going to have much karma with US consumers and, like Obama's political payback to Solyndra, there's likely going to be a bankruptcy somewhere in their future. Volt projected the sale of 4,000 consumer units in Nov., 2011—in addition to a like amount of sales to commercial fleets. Chevrolet sold a total of 1,139 Volts in November.

To beef up the numbers to make it appear that the Volt was popular, or at least that it has been accepted by consumers as a viable motor vehicle, environmentally-friendly GE agreed to buy 12,000 Volts over the next year. An average of 539 Volts per month have been sold since its launch in December, 2010. GM still claims there is a high demand for the Volt when in fact there is virtually no demand for it at all. And, that of course spells doom for the Karma which, US sales will ultimately prove, has no karma at all.

A public insult demands a public apology
Nov. 24, 2011—On Monday, Nov. 21 NBC Late Night host Jimmy Fallon and his hip-hop band leader, Ahmir Khalid Thompson (a Muslim believer who belongs to the Nation of Gods & Earth, who follows a self-styled messiah named Clarence Smith who calls himself Allah. Smith was a devotee of Malcolm X. The orthodoxy of the Nation of Gods & Earth gets its bearings from the Nation of Islam.) Thompson is the bandleader of The Roots. When Fallon scheduled Congresswoman and GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann's appearance, Thompson reportedly determined to deliberately insult her with a "musical prank" when she appeared on Fallon's show. Prior to the program, Thompson tweeted his followers to alert them that he was gong to "snark" a guest, saying "...you love it when we snark: this next one takes the cake. as around cause I aint tweeting title." The audience that tuned in to Fallon's show Tuesday night was expecting to see someone insulted. Apparently, everyone on the Late Show—except Bachmann—was in on it.

Congresswoman Bachmann [R-MN] should feel more than insulted—she should be mad. Mad enough to demand that left-leaning NBC take some sort of punitive action against both Fallon and Thompson. When Fallon introduced Bachmann the band played the music to the Fishbone's hip-hop song "Lyin' Ass Bitch." Not versed in hip-hop or their disgusting lyrics, nor aware of the words to the music being played, Bachmann was smiling when she came on-stage and shook hands with Fallon as Fishbone's gritty music played in the background.

After-the-fact, when she learned what happened, Bachmann was reportedly outraged. She told Entertainment Weekly that if the "snark" had been played on Michelle Obama instead of Michele Bachmann, NBC would have issued an apology and The Roots member who snarked her would have been fired. In fact, I surmise, the whole band would have been fired and there is a good chance Fallon's show would have been canceled.

Bachmann apparently agreed to do Fallon's show because she's a fan. She told Entertainment Weekly she didn't have anything against him because, she added, "I love him, he's a kick. It was a great opportunity to be on the show, I'd love to go back again. But the point is, had that been Michelle Obama who had come out on the stage, and if that song had been played for Michelle Obama, I have no doubt that NBC would have apologized to her and likely they could have fired the drummer—at least suspended him...This would not have been tolerated if this was Michelle Obama. It shouldn't be tolerated if it's a conservative woman, either."

Fallon apologized—on Twitter. Fallon's flunkies and, by extension, Fallon, embarrassed her "in person." Fallon needs to apologize to Congresswoman Bachmann the same way—in person. Face-to-face. And Thompson needs to be fired. One NBC executive sent a letter to Bachmann on Nov. 23, expressing his regret over the incident, assuring the Congresswoman that The Late Show did not mean to offend her. Questioned by the media, the executive who asked to remain anonymous, said his letter was not, in any way, to be construed as an official apology from the network. If any conservative talk show host or his band leader insulted, say, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein or Hillary Clinton, the liberal media would have crucified him. In addition to demanding the termination of the offending talk show host, the left would likely also subtlely suggest to the sponsors who keep the offending talk show on the air that their dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Neither Fallon nor the band saw anything offensive about the "snark" because the song was not political. But, it doesn't matter whether or not the lyrics are political when you use them to call a woman a "...little lyin' ass bitch," because the insult becomes personal. And personal trumps political. On Tuesday, Congresswoman Nita Lowery [D-NY] issued a statement following the incident in which she said: "I do not share Michele Bachmann's politics. But she deserves to be treated with respect. No female politician—and no woman—should be subjected to sexist and offensive innuendo like she was last night."

Party-crasher Ron Paul, once again,
has become the "life of the party."
Oct. 8, 2011—Fiercely diehard Ron Paul supporters showed up at the Values Vote Summit in Washington, DC and catapulted him, once again, to the top of a straw poll. Dr. Paul ran away with 37% of the vote. Six hundred people bought tickets and registered to vote on Saturday morning—roughly one third of the 1,983 total registered participants, most of whom were pre-registered for the event.

Sixty-three year old Patricia Johnson, one of the registered voter/guests did not like what she saw at the Summit. The Ron Paul Campaign, she said, "...[had] a big cheerleading squad, but they all [voted and left] after their candidate spoke. They did not stay and listen to other people's views"

A Ron Paul supporter, 52-year old William Skir, came to DC from Long Island to vote for Paul in the straw poll. "No matter how well he does," Skir said, "the media keeps ignoring him." Skir, like the all other fiercely loyal Ron Paul fans simply doesn't understand what everyone except the diehard Ron Paul fans realize. Straw polls mean nothing because they can, and usually are, unscientifically loaded with zealots who skew the vote to make it appear their candidate has universal support he doesn't possess. To vote in a straw poll, all you have to do is buy a ticket and show up. Zealots show up in larger numbers than those who are simply interested in hearing the views of all of the candidates and, then, basing their straw poll vote on what the candidates said that day. Dr. Paul's zealots gave him 37% of the 1,983 votes cast on Saturday, and Herman Cain zealots gave him 23% of the votes. When the real primary votes are tallied next year, Dr. Paul will win 2% to 5% of the real votes cast. Herman Cain will pull 1% to 2% of the real votes cast. It will still be a neck-in-neck fight between form Gov. Mitt Romney [R-MA] and Gov. Rick Perry [R-TX], in 2012—with Newt Gingrich, who does not appear to be too concerned about his poor showing today, winning the lion's share of the early GOP primaries (particularly in the industrial northeastern and northwestern States)—with only of 15% to 20% of the vote—as a field of too many GOP contenders fight for double digit conservative crumbs.

When ABC News journalist Amy Bingham spoke with attendees about their choices, she noted a lot of support for Herman Cain. One such supporter, Bruce Gordon of College Grove, OR said he supported Cain "...because he seemed down to Earth." But, in 2007, so did Barack Obama who turned out to be a dangerous Manchurian Candidate. Gordon reiterated that Cain's "...success wasn't handed to him." True, but making pizzas doesn't qualify you to run a nation.

America is in real trouble. Within the next three to five years, the European Union is going to collapse. The United States is in jeopardy of doing the same solely and unilaterally because of Obama's socialist penchants. The only experience Obama brought to the table was his experience was his abilities as a community organizer, and a penchant to threaten and blackmail corporate America to give money to minority advocacy groups.

What makes anyone think that making pizzas qualified Herman Cain any more than the community organizer to run a nation? Because he's a millionaire who was successful in selling Godfather Pizza™ franchises? The most qualified people for the office of President are those who have served as one of the nation's governors. That is the only executive experience that prepares you to walk into the Oval Office, step up to the helm, and steer the ship of State without asking directions.

There are two governors in the list of candidates. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. There is one Senator. Rick Santorum (who had several committee assignments that would help round out the experience he would require to manage what used to be the world's strongest economy.) . One Congresswoman: 3rd term Michele Bachmann who sat on the Financial Services Committee for her first two terms. She then wrangled a slot on the Select Intelligence Committee in the 112th Congress to give herself the appearance of having national security experience. Bachmann's popularity extends beyond the Tea Party to those less outspoken conservatives of the same stripe. Bachmann's election problems stem from the fact that those left of the polarizing centerpost will not vote for her. That means it doesn't matter how good she might be for America, the raw numbers say she can't be elected. Clearly the left, and the princes of industry and barons of banking who pick the losers, winners and runners-up, need enough spoilers in the race to assure that their designated loser prevails in the primaries.

In the Values Vote Straw Poll, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum showed up third with 16%; followed by Michele Bachmann with 8%, Rick Perry with 8%, Mitt Romney with 4% and designated 2012 loser, Newt Gingrich, with 2%. Only two votes were cast for Jon Huntsman. Santorum, who could not carry enough votes in Pennsylvania to get reelected in 2006, told Chris Wallace of Fox News he was convinced his under-funded, understaffed campaign could win the White House. Santorum is shaping up as the Mike Huckabee of 2012—the man whose job it will be to drain just enough votes from Romney to keep him from winning both primaries and delegates. If she stays in the race, Michele Bachmann will be Rick Perry's nemesis. Neither Bachmann nor Santorum have the presidential charisma needed to win. But both have enough drawing power to keep Romney and Perry from prevailing against Gingrich. Given enough money to stay in the race, both will serve the princes of industry and the barons of banking well as spoilers to help the designated loser win the nomination and lose to the designated winner in Nov. 2012.

What angers me most is that the most liberal TV network, ABC, is telling us who the GOP Vice Presidential running mate should be—11 months before the GOP nominee decides who he wants, not who a consensus of liberal news journalists feel will best help the GOP ticket lose. What angers me most about the Tea Party is twofold. First, they believe in imposible miracles. And second, they can't count.

Historically, more national elections are won by Democrats than Republicans. Why? Because, doing the simple math, there are more Democratic voters than Republican voters. There are roughly 85 million registered Democrats and 64 million registered Republican voters. Then there are about 22 million registered "Independent" of which about 13 million of them are far left of center and 9 million are far right of center. What that means is that if we do not have a Republican candidate who was, say, a former Democrat who, possibly, headed a union in his younger days, like Ronald Reagan, the Democrat is likely going to win. In other words, not only could Michele Bachman, Ron Paul, John Huntsman,. and Rick Santorum never win the GOP nomination, they couldn't win a presidential election without pulling 25 million Democratic votes into their column.

The Election of 2008 should have been a contest between Islamofascist Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney—with Romney easily winning. But the smart money, backing the collapse of the US economy to create an international crisis so severe that the industrial nations of the world will be forced to surrender their political, economic and theological sovereignty to the Muslim controlled United Nations, was backing the Manchurian Candidate—Obama.

How did they keep Romney from winning in 2008? By getting ten conservative candidates to join the primary fray. Nine conservatives began the primary race competing with two left of center candidates: John McCain and Rudy Guiliani. (After Guiliani dropped out of the race, McCain's totals increased because he didn't have to split the Rockefeller Republican votes with anyone else.) They did that because the money barons who finance the winners and losers knew when you have nine conservative candidates in the fray and one neoconservative, the nine will split the conservative votes and the left of center candidate will own all of the Rockefeller Republican votes. In 2008, McCain, a left-of-center Republican, knew he would pull 25% to 30% of the primary votes. In the early primaries, McCain and Guiliani would spilt 20% to 30% of the GOP-left vote and front-runner Romney would pull about 15%. Everyone else would split the remaining 60%. As the conservatives diluted each other's votes, the static left-of-center Rockefeller Republicans will nominate Gingrich. This will fracture the GOP vote on Election Day, giving the man 80% of the people don't want, a second unconstitutional term, marking what could well be the last free election in the Late, Great United States of America.

How Californians use welfare money
Mar. 12, 2011—Over the last three years California welfare recipients having been using their welfare "income" payments in places like Hawaii, on cruise ships from Miami, Florida and, for those who prefer to spend their—oops, your—money closer to home, there are the casinos in Las Vegas. From October, 2009 to May, 2010 California welfare recipients spent $69 outside of California. About $11.8 million was spent at casino ATMs. The welfare payment casino withdrawals represent about 1% of the total California welfare spending, or about $227,392 per month. The casino spending, according to Seth Unger, spokesman for California Assembly Republican leader Martin Garrick, "...is an astounding waste of taxpayer dollars. To me," he said, "it is absolutely clear that the department failed in its duty to provide oversight. We should explore all options to gt the money back."

When the social progressives heading up California's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families decided it was beneath the dignity of the poor to have to pay for their groceries with food coupons they provided them with electronic food stamps in the form of ATM cards—which came with strict rules how the money in the cards could be spent. The problem was that the cash could be withdrawn and spent just about anywhere. A recent study revealed that the ANF cards work in the ATM machines of 32 of the 58 tribal casinos; and 47 of 90 state-licensed poker rooms. In June of last year when the problem was discovered, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an Exectuve Order requiring State ewlfare recipients to sign a promise that they will only use cash benefits "...to meet the basic subsistence needs" of their families."

Like most States drowning in red ink, California's welfare system has had to slash its administrative budget and lay off 15 investigators. As the State cut some $900 thousand in operating expenses, the lack of fiscal oversight allowed what Paul Barlett, commander of the Orange County District Attorney's Bureau of Investigation described as "...an estimated $9.6 million in suspected fraud payments out the door." California now leads the nation in "penny-wise, pound foolish" budget planning...until the next budgetary snafu tops the evening news.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf says
Obamacare will cost 800 thousand jobs
Feb. 11, 2011—Testifying before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas W. Elmendorf admitted that contrary to the political hyperbole sputtered by the left when Obamacare was being debated, by 2021 Obamacare will have caused the loss of 1/2 of 1% of the US workforce, or Elmendorf estimated, about 800 thousand workers. What Elmendorf didn't say, or rather danced around, was the fact that the United States has been steadily losing jobs since the Clintons enacted the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] in 1993. Job growth in the United States was about 2.6% when the baby boomers entered the workforce between 1965 and 1974. Because most of the baby boomers had already entered the workforce by the mid-1980s, the growth of the labor force slowed to 1.6% by the time George H.W. Bush entered the White House in 1989. When George W. Bush moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the work force, thanks to the NAFTA job drain, had dropped to a growth rate of 1.1%. Under Obama, the job growth rate has plummeted to 0.6%—and it's still dropping.

Questioned by Congressman John Campbell [R-CA] about Elmendorf's estimate on job losses over the next decade, Elmendorf said: "...we...estimate...that the household employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade..." In making that statement, Elmendorf revealed something Campbell may not have known about the US labor force. It's shrinking at a much faster rate today than it was just prior to the 2008 election. According to the Population Reference Bureau's Population Bulletin, Vol. 63, No. 2, In June, 2008 jobs in the United States were growing at an annual rate of 0.6%. At that rate of growth, the US workforce would exceed 167 million by the end of the decade. Elmendorf projected the US workforce at 160 million by 2021, or a ten-year increase of 2,305,000 workers over the current level of 157,695,000—an annual increase of about two-tenths of 1% rather than six-tenths of 1%.

Elmendorf is a former Clinton Administration Assistant Treasury Secretary who was a senior fellow in the economic studies program at the Brookings Institute when he was tapped by Sen. Daniel K. Inouye [D-HI] to fill the position of Congressional Budget Office Director. Elmendorf was jointly confirmed by Inouye and Speaker of the House John Boehner [R-OH]. It was a short honeymoon for the newly-enthroned Republicans who became quickly disillusioned with Elmendorf's analysis of Obamacare and his comments about the GOP measure to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The CBO issued a press release challenging the wisdom of repealing Obamacare by claiming that such an action would add $230 billion to future federal deficits between 2012 and 2021. That was enough to have Elmendorf summoned to explain his views to the House Budget Committee.

While the GOP labeled HR 2 as the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, Elmendorf never specifically said Obamacare would kill jobs, he used the term "reduction of labor" which translates either into less jobs or fewer hours for less wages for those in the work force. In reality, less jobs means some jobs will not be created; thus, those jobs will have been killed.

The Elmendorf "twist" in the budget analysis was that many people who are now forced to work because they need health insurance will choose to quit their jobs since healthcare will now be provided. Thus, the loss of jobs down the road will be the result of people no longer needing to work because of Obamacare. Ignored in this logic is rent, food, and the necessities of life.

Milwaukee fines man for swearing on a bus
Dec. 27, 2010—Apparently public swearing in Milwaukee, Wisconsin--expecially on the Milwaukee County public transit system—is pandemic for county officials to risk a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union. The disorderly conduct ordinance was modeled after an old Kenosha, Wisconsin city ordinance that disallows people from using "...profane, vile, filthy or obscene language in the city." The modified city ordinance levies a fine of $118 against any person using profane or obscene language when being questioned by a police officer. The Kenosha ordinance requires the police officer to warn the citizen first. If the citizen continues, they will receive the ticket.

Milwaukee began its war against "ear assault" in 2008 when it enacted a countywide noise ordinance that allows county residents to file public nuisance lawsuits not only against people who feel it's their duty to entertain the whole neighborhood with eardrum-ripping music or play-by-play reporting of their favorite baseball or football team, or NASCAR's Talladega 500, but from Milwaukee's 8,600 registered motorcycle users who find it necessary to rev their engines to an earsplitting level before barreling down the down the street on their way to the open highway.

Milwaukee went "one better" than Kenosha. Their ordinance forbids passengers on Milwaukee's public transit system from cursing or using profane or obscene language that could be disturbing to other passengers who may or may not be children. The fine? $500.00 (or, according to the ticket one passenger received, $484.00).

On Dec. 26, Gary, Indiana transplant Terry Duncan learned how much a "F--- yous or a "s--t" or two will cost when an undercover Milwaukee County Sheriff's deputy who was riding on the same bus slapped Duncan with a $500 disorderly conduct ticket and threw him off the bus as the other passengers applauded.

Duncan, who admitted he commonly spices his conversations with choice adjectives to make his point, says it's ridiculous to be fined $500 for swearing on a bus. Duncan told Milwaukee's ABC affiliate, WISN-TV that he didn't know there was a law against swearing on a bus in Milwaukee since "No Swearing" is not posted anywhere on the bus. He admitted that he cursed during a conversation with another passenger, but the curse words were not directed at any specific person. And, by extending Duncan's logic, they should be free because [a] he wasn't swearing at anyone, and [b] he didn't know there was law against it in Milwaukee.

Duncan told Channel3000.com that he thinks a $500 fine for swearing on a county bus is ridiculous, adding that he intends to fight the ticket in court.

While it appears that government has no constitutional authority to "regulate" free speech, "stupid-speak" is something else. "Stupid-speak" includes things like shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. And, it includes using profane and/or pornographic language in confined public places from which those offended cannot readily escape the verbal assault. The federal courts have ruled that using stupid-speak is not protected by the First Amendment

The social progressives who view swearing in public as not protected speech believe profanity and pornography in print or video are. They also believe that Christian-speak is an offense worse than stupid-speak—and worse even than profanity or pornography. Christian-speak, in fact, is so offensive to mankind that the social progressives have classified those who are addicted to Christian-speak are the world's worst racists and they deserve to be classified as terrorists by the Department of Homeland Security .

Democrats delay overturn of FCC
attempt to take over the Internet.
Dec. 17, 2010—The United States Justice Foundation launched an aggressive campaign to alert the American people of an attempt by the Federal Communications Commission through the Department of Homeland Security, based on an Executive Order issued by Barack Obama, followed by an unconstitutional Secretarial Order issued by the FCC to assume control off the Internet. USJF's effort, picked up by several other advocacy groups throughout the United States, triggered hundreds of thousands of faxes, emails and telephone calls to Congressmen and Senators demanding that they act to rescind the self-asserted authority of the FCC to regulate the Internet.

(Updated with additional material on Dec. 23, 2010 and again on Jan. 9, 2011. I wrote extensively about this issue in BEHIND THE HEADLINES earlier in 2010. Without anyone on Capitol Hill seeming to pay attention to the aborgation of the 1st Amendment by Barack Obama, and with a straight face that would suggest to anyone paying attention that they had the constitutional authority to do so, the FCC stood poised to steal the Internet with rules that a panel of three federal judges, ruling in American Civil Liberties Union v Reno,said that the Internet "...is a publishing medium [in which]...personal home pages are the equivalent of individualized newsletters about that person or organization." [929 F. Supp at 837]).

The judges concluded that the Internet deserves at least as much protection under the 1st Amendment as printed matter receives. The appellate court judges emphasized that any analysis of the 1st Amendment protections afforded to a particular medium of mass communications must focus on the underlying technology that brings the information to the user. Thus, they concluded, the Supreme Court's two primary theories for government regulation of any form of broadcast communications content—NBC v United States (319 US 190 [1943] and FCC v Pacific Foundation (438 US 726 [1978]) do not justify government regulation of the Internet.

Which, of course is why Sen. Jay Rockefeller's [D-WV] Cybersecurity Act of 2009 never got out of committee in the far left-controlled 111th US Senate, and why Barack Obama had to activate it through an illegal Executive Order, using the FCC to further muddy-the-water by using a Secretarial Order (who ever heard of such a thing?) to generate regulations which the left said would make the Internet "more fair."

Because of the force of the faxes, emails and telephone calls protesting the unconstitutional and unconscionable takeover of the electronic media on the Internet, the 87 new Tea party Republicans in the House of Representatives, led in part by 8th term Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn [R-TN], the repeal of the FCC's self-professed authority over the Internet began to take place. The GOP leadership's decision to wait shocked Blackburn and angered many of the 87 freshmen Republicans on the Hill who want the misdeeds of the 111th Congress erased from the memory of man as quickly as possible.

On Tuesday, March 1, Representatives Henry Waxman [D-CA] and Anna Eshoo [D-CA] requested that House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton and Communications & Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden hold another hearing on rescinding the FCC guidelines to regulate the Internet, arguing that many Internet companies—including Amazon, eBay, Facebook, and Google favor the FCC's "...common sense baseline rules to protect the Internet." Of course they do. All of them are owned by political leftists. One of Google's Egyptian marketing managers, Wael Ghonim, a member of the Revolutionary Youth of Egypt, organized anti-governmetn demonstrations. Google CEO Eric Schmidt told the media that Google is "...very, very proud" of Ghonim.

Walden, together with Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence, cosponsored the Broadcaster's Freedom Act of 2011 that will prevent the FCC from re-instituting the leftwing "Fairness Doctrine" in the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ] in Tucson last month. The Far Left blamed Giffords' shooting on the Tea Party and conservative figures like former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and talk show hosts Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh when, in fact, Jared Loughner, Giffords' shooter, was a fan of the left who was not influenced by the right. The left, however, still lives by the adage, never let a good crisis go to waste.

Walden owned radio stations in Oregon for over 21 years. Pence is a former radio talk show host. "The American people," Pence noted, "cherish freedom—especially freedom of speech and of the press. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the airways..." Only this time around, the left also wants to introduce the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet, calling the cyberversion of the Fairness Doctrine "net neutrality." Just as there was nothing "fair" about the Fairness Doctrine, there is nothing "neutral" about Net Neutrality. Both are censorship that require the right to give equal access and/or equal time to the left to dilute their message. It is an attempt to muzzle conservative-speak by forcing the dominant conservative voices on the Internet to share their audiences with liberal bloggers to preserve the left's arguments against the views of the right. However, the regulations do not specify the size of the audience or the prominence of the blogger, which means "Net Neutrality" can require popular kitchen-table bloggers to share their blogs with those expounding opposing views—or, alteratively, to penalize bloggers viewed by the cybercritics as too biased by limiting or simply blocking their reach.

Judge upholds suspension of Christian counselor
July 29, 2010—US District Court Judge George Caram Steeh, a 1998 Bill Clinton appointee to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Steeh, who is the former President of the Arab-American Bar Association, dismissed a lawsuit filed against Eastern Michigan University [EMU] by a Christian graduate student, Julea Ward, who was expelled by the university because she refused to affirm that homosexual behavior was normal. Ward enrolled in an EMU program with expectations that she would complete the program and become a high school student counselor As a student counselor, Ward counseled student "clients" in a university-operated clinic. In one instance she encountered a "client" who had recently been involved in a homosexual relationship that went bad. The "client" had previously been counseled about that relationship. He wanted to be treated for depression—which would entail further counseling about that relationship. Because of her opposition to homosexuality, Ward asked her faculty supervisor if she could refer the client to another counselor. She explained her religious views precluded her from telling the client that his homosexual behavior was normal.

The university told Ward she would be allowed to stay in the program only if she underwent a "remediation reeducation program" (diversity training) so she could see "the error of her ways" and alter her views about homosexuality. She refused. Telling her that her conduct violated the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics, she was expelled.

Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel David French, who represented Ward in her efforts to force the school to reinstate her told the media that "...Christian students shouldn't be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs. To reach its decision, the courts had to do something that's never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code." It is a speech code defined by the American Civil Liberties Union working in conjunction with the American bar Association beginning in 1989.

In May of that year the ABA distributed to their membership a little noticed or talked about brochure advertising a seminar "...for attorneys who want to be on the leading edge of an explosive new are area of law"—suing churches, Christian leaders, Christian activists and schools that cross the line. The reason? The utopians attempting to create world government were quick to grasp the reality that the patriotism that fuels nationalism is rooted in Christian faith. It became clear to the globalists that before American sovereignty could be breached, the social progressives who were determined to destroy the nation with the aid of corrupt political hacks, judges and bureaucrats who would attack the underpinnings of the 1st Amendment and destroy both religious freedom and free speech.

One of Julea Ward's lawyers, Jeremy Tedesco told Fox News Radio that while the ruling did not explicitly say so, its clear the decision could allow colleges and universities across the nation the expel Christian students for voicing explicit Christian tenets under a host of different scenarios. The Alliance Defense Fund also defended another counseling student at Augusta State University in Georgia. Jennifer Keeton was told to stop sharing her Christian beliefs if she wanted to graduate from Augusta. Keeton's ADF lawsuit argued that she was told she would have to undergo a "reeducation program" and attend "diversity sensitivity classes" if she expected to graduate. Through the efforts of the social progressives the 1st Amendment has successfully morphed into Articles 13 and 14 of the UN's Covenant on Human Rights. The 1st Amendment no longer exists for Christians if social progressives or the deviants they need to get elected object.

Augusta State University issued a statement that the University does not discriminate on the basis of students' moral, religious, political or personal beliefs. Except, it appears unless those moral, religious or personal beliefs are Christian.

Peer review journal claims medical journals are
marketing for major pharmaceutical companies.
June 27, 2010—PLoS Medicine a peer review journal for the Public Library of Science claimed in an article that the most respected medical journals have become much too dependent on revenue from the pharmaceutical industry from two sources. First, advertising revenue which, according to PLoS, is the least corrupting form of revenue since the pharmaceutical industry should have the right to reach their potential customers in the periodicals their customers—doctors—read. What is the bigger problem, and what corrupts the integrity of the advertising process in about 25 different medical journals according to PLoS in an article published by the Public Library of Science five years ago (but never read by the general public which does not generally subscribe to it) is the second source of "advertising" revenue. The PR firms hired by the pharmaceutical giants pay fees to the journals to print well-edited capsulated synopsis of the drug trials.

The PR firms know that when the drug trials are published in any medical journal, the drug and the test tacitly carry that journal's stamp of approval simply by appearing in it. According to PLoS, a favorable review in a periodical like the Journal of American Medicine and the British Medical Journal and Lancet which have global distribution is worth thousands of pages of advertising. The PR companies will sometimes pay upwards of a million dollars for reprints of the articles to send to drug distributors, pharmaceutical wholesalers and medical professionals. While the PR firms admit the recipients of the reprints seldom read them, what they rely on is the name of the prestigious journal printing the review of giving a new drug credibility in the marketplace it has not earned from evidence of their curative abilities. The more important the medical journal, the more credibility the drug receives in the eyes of the physicians who receive the reprints.

Many times the whole content of the written clinical tests are not all that favorable to the drug but that, of course, is not reflected in the capsulated, controlled synopsis that appears in the medical journals. In 1994, Dr. Paula Rochon, adjunct scientist for the Kunin-Lunefeld Applied Research Unit and several of her colleagues wrote a paper examining the impact of journals which were paid to publish controlled excerpts of clinical studies had on the medical community's acceptance of the drugs compared to actual medicinal value of the drugs examined. The study focused on one class of drugs only: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs designed to combat arthritis. They found 56 trials. Not one of the published reports on the clinical studies presented any facts that were detrimental to the drugs tested.

The group came back a decade later, in 2003, and did a follow-up study on the 56 trial drugs to see if the drugs were living up to their clinical claims. The article was published by Richard Smith, the CEO of UnitedHealth Europe. Smith was Editor-in-Chief of the British Medical Journal for 13 years and held that job when the aforementioned study on the new arthritis drug was done. In many cases the reality of the drugs did not match the printed rhetoric of the promises of the clinical study conducted a decade earlier.

The question raised by the Public Library of Science a decade later was: how do pharmaceutical companies get the results they want once the drug is approved and recommended by physicians to their clients. When we go to our HMO or PPO physicians and they prescribe medication, we assume—and have every right and expectation to assume—that the prescription our physician prescribes will relieve or cure whatever the prescription is taken for. According to Smith, the pharmaceutical companies and their PR firms get the results they want not by fudging the facts but by asking the right questions and providing the right answers. This comes from hiring the right PR top guns who know how to stay a step ahead of the peer review groups. They do this by isolating positive parts of the clinical studies and forcing the dialogue into those positive aspects while ignoring negative ones. Or they combine the results from different centers in multiple combinations to obfuscate negative results in some facet or facets of the clinical study.

These strategies, Smith noted, have been exposed in the cases of risperidone and odansetron. However, with the 56 clinical studies the PLoS were attempting to evaluate, there was an impossible amount of work to examine in order to ascertain how many of the trials were truly independent and not biased on behalf of the fees paid by the pharmaceutical company. Clearly, what the Big Pharma wants is their drugs approved and used, and the PR firms they hire are paid to get positive "reviews" from the medical journals and paid advertising and advertorial (paid editorial copy) in the form of capsulated clinical studies.

What it comes down to, if the world's most prestigious medical journals—which medical professionals read as the Bible of the industry—have sold their souls for money, it is no more factually believable than magazines like The Onion or Mad magazine, the satirical comic book most Americans of read as teenagers back in the 1950s and 1960s. Smith further noted that "...Journal editors are becoming increasingly aware of how they are being manipulated and are fighting back. But, I must confess it took me almost a quarter of a century editing for the BMJ to wake up to what was happening...[E]ditors ask for other related data [related to] the studies submitted to them...But editors do not know what other unpublished studies exist."

Editors generally do not know if they are doing an honest peer review on one product or on a gigantic clever marketing jigsaw. More than likely one or more editors have commented that the material they get, regardless if it's a precise document or a jigsaw puzzle will always be of high technical quality.

The question raised by Smith and investigators like Dr. Rochon is how do we prevent the most prestigious medical journals in the world from selling their editorial souls for money? How do we prevent them from becoming no more credible than Mad Magazine or The Onion? How do we prevent them from becoming an extension of the marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry? Smith thinks the editors can demand the right to review the protocols, and insist that all trials be registered; and most of all, demand that all clinical studies are completely transparent.

That won't happen because the journal publishers and shareholders know those clinical studies are worth millions of dollars in revenue, and bring additional millions in print advertising dollars from the pharmaceutical industry to reward them for publishing the clinical studies. Meaning, of course, that the medical journals are not going to risk that revenue. So, if you're a doctor who generally reads the New England Journal of Medicine, the Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA or BMJ or Lancet in England, Canada or Australia for the latest life saving drugs, you might as well read something that will give you a chuckle. Mad magazine was my magazine of choice as a kid. Give it a try. You have to say one thing about Mad. If you're older than 8 or 10 years of age, you'll always know when Mad's story line is an out-and-out lie or is coloring the truth. According to Smith and the editors of several other medical journals, you can't tell that from clinical studies published in the medical journals until you read the histories of the drugs about a decade later. By then, for some, it's too late. I guess that's why class action lawsuits are still in vogue.

Birthers are right...from March 26, 1790
May 11, 2010—On March 26, 1790 the 1st Congress of the United States, session II, Ch.4 thought it necessary to define precisely what an Article II citizen was to prevent those not legally defined as an Article II citizen from running for, or winning the office of, President of the United States since as a non-citizen, they are not eligible to do either. In the records of the 1st Congress, second session, Congress enacted the guidelines which determined that people not born here while what became the United States was under the thumb of England, who applied for, and were granted citizenship rights, would be construed as a "naturalized" citizens as would any children with them who were under the age of 21 years. These children may have been born in this country, but because their parents were not natural born they were also deemed to be naturalized, not natural born, citizens. They had voting rights, and the right to run for Congress, but not the office of President. I would like you to pause for a moment and think about the pregnant illegals that steal into the United States specifically to have anchor babies here. In the mid-1930s, social progressive Franklin D. Roosevelt decreed, by Presidential Proclamation, that they are construed to be natural born, allowing their parents to use their "anchor status" to get green cards which allowed them to stay in the country. The most prominent illegal in this country today has two anchor children, and a natural born anchor wife. His name is Barack Obama. If his name sounds familiar it's because he's the illegal alien who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania in Washington, DC. According to the law enacted by the 1st Congress, session II, Ch. 4, whether he was born in the State of Hawaii or not, he is ineligible to run for, or be elected to, the office of President of the United States because the law stated" "...the children of citizens (both parents) of the United States, shall be considered natural born citizens; provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any State, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of that State in which such a person was proscribed. (a) Approved, March 26, 1790." What does that mean? It means the father must be a be a citizen to transmit citizenship to a child of his seed who was born in this country. If he is a natural born citizen, he will transmit that right to his offspring. If he is a naturalized citizen, he transmits that right. He cannot transmit a right he does not possess. Thus, if he is not a citizen of the United States, he cannot transmit citizenship rights of any type to his offspring since he has none to bequeath. Which means any illegal alien cannot transmit US citizenship rights to an illegal offspring since they lack citizenship. The parents, and their US-born offspring are legally subject to deportation.

Barack Hussein Obama's father was born in Kenya and was never a citizen of the United States, thus he could not transmit citizenship rights to his son—except Kenyan citizenship rights. Which he did. England claims Barack Obama is a citizen of Kenya. He is also a citizen of Indonesia since his step father, Lolo Soetero, who legally changed Obama's name to Barry Soetoro, renounced both any claim Obama had to US citizenship through his mother, or Kenyan citizenship through his father. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport which suggests the international community viewed him not as an American but an Indonesian. As did Occidental College which, it now appears, gave him a foreign exchange student scholarship.

While Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was a naturalized citizen, under federal law she would have had to be 19-years of age when she gave birth to be able to transmit citizenship rights to a foreign-born son. She was 18-years, 8-months and 5-days old when her son was born on August 4, 1961. Because his father was not a natural citizen of the United States he could only transmit the type of citizenship he possessed. Since he was not a US citizen, he could not even transmit naturalized citizen status. And, since his mother was 3-months and 25-days shy of being able to transmit natural birth status to her first born son, any legal status is in question even if Obama was born in Hawaii—which the effort, and money being spent by Obama to conceal his birth records, together with statements by Kenyan Minister of Lands, James Orengo and Kenyan Minister Bonny Khalwale who claim Obama is native born In Kenya, suggests that the only actual, legitimate long form, birth doctor-affirmed birth certificate Obama has is Kenyan. And thus, even though US law was changed in 1986, he would at least have had a citizenship argument even though he could still not have gotten around the lack of standing of his father to qualify as a natural born citizen. The law was further diluted in 1994, 33 years after his birth. But, once again, too little, too late.

Obama finally sets a presidential record
May 9, 2010—Resident Barack Hussein Obama has finally achieved a presidential record that not even his social progressive predecessors, Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and James Earl Carter, were able to achieve. Nearly 40 million American people—representing approximately 8.25% of the people in America—are now on food stamps. Joblessness (based on those who have filed for, or who are currently receiving unemployment benefits) is at 9.9%. While the government uses that figure as being indicative of joblessness, the jobless rate is much higher since those who have been out of work for more than a half year and are no longer drawing unemployment benefits, or those who simply gave up trying to find a job, are not counted in jobless total. In reality, joblessness is somewhere between 12.5% and 15%—or higher. America has sent over 20 million jobs overseas since NAFTA was enacted. As the job base in the United States continues to shrink the unemployed are engaged in the game of musical chairs where after every round about 10% of the chairs are removed, making it impossible for everyone who needs a chair to find one when the music stops and everyone scrambles to find a roost.

The Dept. of Agriculture, which oversees the Food Stamp assistance program said that in February, 2010, (the last month for which there is an accurate tabulation) 39.68 million Americans were on the program. According the USDA, one in every eight Americans was receiving food assistance. This was an increase of 260 thousand from January. By the way, the coupons, which have been replaced by a debit card to make it appear the recipient is paying for his or her groceries with a debit or credit card, making it less embarrassing for those who have to rely on the government to feed their families (something I favor). (About 30 years ago I filed for unemployment. It was one of the most disparaging experiences in my life. The woman at the unemployment office—who had a job because I and others like me did not—as best as I could see, treated all of the applicants for benefits like we were subhuman. I promised myself I would go hungry before I revisited that experience. And, I never have. I always found work that provided enough to pay the rent or the mortgage, and put food on the table. For many years I had to drive anywhere from 200 to 300 miles, each way, to go to work.)

Anyway, back to the Food Stamp...er, SNAP program. Food stamps, as you might have guessed, are no longer food stamps. SNAP is an acronym for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The Obama people like to point out that when they took office, around 31 million people were on food stamps...er, SNAP. By January 3, 2009, the total was 31.8 million. The USDA estimates that by Sept. 30, 2010, 40.5 million Americans will be on the SNAP program. The cost will be $59 billion. For fiscal 2011, the USDA figures that enrollment under SNAP will increase to 43.3 million.

545 People Out of 300 Million
Mar. 29, 2010—A wise commentary by Charlie Reese. (Editor's Note: I usually do not use material written by other writers, but when someone like Charlie Reese talks, its like E.F. Hutton...everyone listens. Or rather, they should. This is a "Short Take" that is long on logic and common sense. Bookmark this page, and on election day this year, take a few minutes to read this just before you go to the voting precinct to cast your vote.)

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered, if both Democrats and Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve does. One hundred Senators, 435 Congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices equate to 545 human beings out of 300 million people who are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but [privately-owned] central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason...They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a Senator, a Congressman, or a President to do one cotton-pickin' thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 to #1 million in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how to vote.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the Speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget the want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. It's inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million people cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted—by present facts—of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Army and Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq. If they do not received Social Security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way. If they are enrolled in an elite health care insurance far superior to the plan they are planning for the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to the bureaucrats whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists whose gifts and advise they can reject; to regulators to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power back. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they took an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of 'em out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist for the Orlando Sentinel.

Let them eat lobster and caviar!
Feb. 1, 2010—If there is one person in history that Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama reminds me of, it's not Harriet Tubman. Mary McLeod Bethune, Marian Wright Edelman or Eleanor Roosevelt (even though her husband reminds me of FDR). Michelle Obama reminds me of France's iconic but ill-fated queen, Marie Antoinette von-Habsburg-Lothringen, the Archduchess of Austria who married to Louis XVI. She and her husband were deposed and imprisoned during Robespierre's Reign of Terror. Her crime? Treason. In reality, her crime was, literally, not caring about the welfare of the French people. According to Emer de Vattel's Law of the Nations (from which common law has its roots) monarchs are obligated to care for their subjects.

Marie Antoinette was an extremely selfish, uncaring queen whom the people disliked immensely. Among the causes of the French Revolution was a severe food shortage which brought starvation and economic deprivation to the French people. When she was told by her husband's ministers that the cause for the unrest in France was because the people had no bread to feed their children, she flippantly replied, "Qu'ils manent de la brioche," which literally translated means "Let them eat expensive sweet eggy rolls"—one of her favorite desserts. History translated it as "Then let them eat cake."

In the closing days of the Campaign of 2008 as Barack and Michelle Obama traveled the countryside assuring their rich white constituents that when they was coronated King and Queen of the United States they would immediately begin the redistribution of the wealth of America's middle class through illegal UN carbon taxes to the princes of industry and barons of business and banking who were converting the third world into the commerce mecca of the 21st century's. At the same time, they assured their minority constituents in the United States that immediately after the inauguration of common Americans Barack and Michelle (who suddenly loved the country Michelle Obama hated as a member of Jeremiah Wright's congregation), they promised black America they would begin the redistribution of the wealth of white middle class—to them. Call it reparations. Call it a lie. When they spoke to the white middle class, they assured them that if their household income was $250 thousand or less, they would not receive a tax increase under the Obama Administration.

After the middle class taxpayers were slapped with two trillion, two hundred thirty-nine billion, five hundred million dollars that will ultimately translate into seventy-one trillion, six hundred sixty-four billion dollars in taxes when the interest paid to the Fed bankers is added in to what must be paid by our children, grandchildren and great-great grandchildren—and universal carbon taxes that will impact every man, woman and child regardless of their race and station in life (except the ultra-rich who can buy carbon credits), it will not be long before social progressive bureaucrats will be telling Queen Michelle that the Tea Party revolt that is threatening the Obama dynasty was caused by angry Americans from every walk of life and every political persuasion simply because the people no longer have enough bread to feed their children. To which Queen Michelle will haughtily reply: "Let them eat lobster and cavier." Obama's lunch that day? In his photo ops, you always see common folk Barack Obama sharing a burger with someone at a local burger den. When he enjoys a private lunch with Michelle at the Waldorf-Astoria, like they did on Oct. 15, 2008, they begin lunch with 2 hors d'oeuvres at $50.00, 2 whole steamed lobsters at $100.00, Iranian Osetra caviar at $150.00, washed down with Bollinger Champagne at $44.00. With tip, the down-to-earth Obama's enjoyed a $447.39 lunch. I wonder if that was before or after photo op hamburgers at Buddy's Burger Barn?

When politicians lose sight of the plight of the common man and become lackeys for the princes of industry and the barons of business and banking, it is time to remove them from power and replace them with citizen legislators who will restore the rule of law, outlaw bribery in high places through a Constitutional amendment that will levy mandatory prison sentences not only the politicians and the lobbyists who pay and receive bribes, but on the heads of the cartels who ultimately profit from the bribes as well. The American people need to restore the rule of law and apply it equally to everyone. That means, every law that applies to the least of us applies to richest and most powerful of us as well. All men are not equal if some are more equal than others.

Obama Death Board rules no mammograms
before 50. Rationing will be a key part of
the Obama healthcare program.
Nov. 16, 2009—As Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius quickly mastered the Obama art of lying with a straight face like her boss as she referred to Barack Obama's federal Health Board as a healthcare task force and not the bureaucracy of medical doctors legislated into existence not in any of the healthcare plans being debated on Capitol Hill, but in HR-1, the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Obama stimulus bill. You might say that HR-1 was a real "killer of a law." HR-1 allowed the President of the United States to pick a board of doctors with the authority of life or death over the American people.

When the Health Board, more appropriately called the Death Board (because government always names their legislation and their agencies with names that do precisely the opposite of what their names imply). The Health Board's job is to write the regulations that will arbitrarily deny healthcare surgeries, procedures and even medications, to some, or all, people under specific circumstances. For example, today, the Obama Health Board, now referred to by the Obama Administration as the "task force,"said that women do not need mammograms in their 40s and should not start getting them every two years beginning at age 50.

This is a startling departure from the position of the American Cancer Society's long standing position that women should begin getting mammograms at age 40. In fact, the American Cancer Society's chief medical officer Dr. Otis Brawley contradicted the Obama "task force," saying: "This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend that any woman 40 and over [have this done." But the Obama Death Board (since they will be the rationing gurus for Obamacare), temporary named the US Preventive Services Task Force, comprised of 18 medical bureaucrats and headed by Rahm Emanuel's brother, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, concluded that such early and frequent screenings often lead to false positive alarms and unnecessary biopsies without, they say, improving the woman's odds of survival. That, of course, is patently untrue. Compare the survival rates for women with breast cancer in the United States with women in the 18 industrialized nations with socialized healthcare and you will see the survival rates in the United States is the best in the world. Why? Because of early and often testing.

Breast cancer survivors whose cancer was diagnosed in their 30s and 40s were the most vocal critics of these new guidelines. Debbie Haynes, who was diagnosed with Stage 2 breast cancer at age 33 after finding a lump during a self-exam said she thought this decision was "...a big step backwards." A mammogram and an ultrasound found the cancer, the biopsy confirmed it and a mastectomy and chemotherapy saved her life. "People are being diagnosed with breast cancer even in their early 20s," said Haynes, now 53, who is a volunteer coordinator for the Chicago-based Breast Cancer Network.

It's true that false positives are triggered from 10% to 20% of the time. So what? Give any woman a choice of [a] not screening for breast cancer and finding out too late that she has Stage 3 or Stage 4 breast cancer or [b] getting a false positive reading that scares them until a biopsy confirms what the mammogram found was a benign tumor or a cyst and I don't think any of them will pick [a] over [b].

Norman Hsu to be sentenced.
No mention of Hillary Clinton.
Sept. 29, 2009—the liberal Gannett USA Today reported today, on page 3A. that Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu faces sentencing in a New York Court. But there was no mention in the Pulitzer-quality 45 wor article that Hsu was a straw man for the People's Republic of China who acted as a bundler for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she gathered money in 2007 to run for the White House.in 2008. Hsu's saga with Hillary has to be referred to as Chinagate II after the Wall Street Journal broke the story that six members of one oriental family in Daley City, California—without the financial means to do so—donated between $213 abd $260 thousand to Democratic candidates since 2005. The William Paw family contributed $55 thousand of that money to Hillary. Over the past three years they gave her $102,300.00. You can bet if Hsu had been a bundler for any Republican—even a county dog catcher the left wing media would not have lost a heart-beat connecting the names and linking the dog catcher with the highest ranking Republican in office.

The red flag (pardon the pun) arose from the obviousl lack of affluence from the look of their poverty level 1,280 square foot house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. in Daley City. Paw was a USPS union reporesentative who earned $40 thosuand per year. It was unclear to anyone investigating the Paws how they could have contributed $213 thousand to Democratic candidates and another $14 thousand to candidates running for Statewide offices. Paw said he wanted to help the Democrats so he took out second mortgage. The Feds said Norman Hsu wasreimbursing them for the contributions they made. Myself, I think the wrong person is going to go to prison.

Kennedy dies from brain cancer
Aug. 26, 2009—Shortly before midnight last night, Aug.25, 2009, after battling brain cancer for a year, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy succumbed to the inoperable brain tumor at his home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. He was 77 years old. News of his death triggered an outpouring of platitudes from Democrats and Republicans, and friends and political foes alike. Barack Hussein Obama issued a statement in which he said: "...an important chapter in our history has come to an end. Our country has lost a great leader..." Superlatives are great, even when the rhetoric doesn't match the man. But, people tend to forget the sins and vices of the man as they honor his memory. Then, five minutes after the funeral, they remember the sins even though the platitudes pen the legacy.

ABC News noted that Kennedy was elected to the Senate in 1962, taking the seat that his brother, former President John F. Kennedy, occupied before winning the White House. True—with a twist. When John Kennedy won the White House, Massachusetts Gov. Foster Furcolo appointed a caretaker senator, Glouchester mayor Benjamin Atwood Smith as a "seat warmer" until the President's brother attained age 30—the minimum constitutional age for holding a Senate seat. The Massachusetts political machine wanted to hold the seat for the younger brother. (Which, of course, is why Ted Kennedy implored the State legislator to change a law he had crafted that stripped the governor of the power to appoint interim US Senators so his widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, could be appointed to finish his term. Kennedy would have come up for reelection in 2012.) Ted Kennedy became 30 years of age on Feb. 22, 1962. A special election for Smith's Senate seat was held during the midterm elections on Nov. 6, 1962. Massachusetts politics is a lot like Chicago politics. Both leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

Because John F. Kennedy was a decorated war hero—something clan head Joe Kennedy believed was imperative for winning the White House, Teddy was schooled at the 200-year old Milton Academy in Milton, Massachusetts. His grades were mediocre. The only thing he excelled in at Milton was football. Kennedy entered Harvard in the fall of 1950. Failing, he had a friend take his Spanish language exam in May, 1951 so he could maintain his eligibility to play football. Caught cheating, he was expelled. In June, 1951 Kennedy enlisted the US Army. Joe Kennedy's political power got his son a berth in the Army Intelligence School at Fort Holabird following basic training at Fort Dix. But, Kennedy was apparently not intelligent enough for "intelligence." He was dropped from the program by the Army after a few weeks. His father arranged for Teddy to be transferred to Camp Gordon for military police training. Instead of going to Korea, Kennedy, the perpetual foul-up, was assigned to the color guard at SHAPE headquarters in Paris. He was discharged in March, 1953 as a private first class. So much for the war hero.

The socialist progressive far left believes the words of Obama whose short eulogy of Kennedy likened him to his brother, who is still fondly remembered by conservatives and liberals alike. Obama said: "An important chapter in our history has come to an end. Our country has lost a great leader who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States senator of our time. For five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance civil rights, health and economic well being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts." Just remember this, when Obama tries to use Kennedy's lifelong penchant to steal one-seventh of the US economy, and tries to use his death to rally moderates and liberals, who are afraid they will lose their jobs, around Obamacare and its death board provisions (which are contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and not in the America's Affordable Heath Choices Act of 2009), and does the "one more for the Gipper" speech, just remember—the Gipper is Ronald Reagan, not Ted Kennedy. And, if you want to know the Gipper's position of socialized medicine, you have it here.

Kennedy trying an old ploy to appoint,
rather than elect, his wife to replace him
Aug. 20, 2009—There is absolutely nothing that will cause a dead liberal politician to roll over in his grave faster than having the voters replace him with a conservative. In 2004 when antiwar left-wing Sen. John Kerry was running for President, the legislators in that State realized that if he prevailed in the general election, under State law at the time, moderate Republican governor Mitt Romney would be allowed to appoint Kerry's replacement for the remaining four years of Kerry's 4th term as a US Senator.. The Massachusetts legislature hurriedly changed the law, requiring a special election to be held within 5 months of any vacancy to replace the legislator whose seat was now vacated. In point of fact, Kennedy wants the State legislation to change the allow, again, to benefit the Democratic Party and, in this instance Vicki Kennedy, the Senator's wife. Kennedy wants her appointed to replace him, giving her a three year head start on those interested in the seat in 2012 when she would come up for reelection as the incumbent junior senator from Massachusetts (even though she told the Boston Globe that she has no interest in replacing her husband either temporarily or permanently.) Yeah, I'll believe that one—when pigs fly.

When the legislators changed Massachusetts law to prevent Romney from being able to appoint a Republican to replace Kerry, Kennedy argued this was the only equitable way to replace incumbents who die in office, retire, or run for, and win, some other position in government. Allowing governors to arbitrarily appoint replacements deprived the citizens of the right to choose their own legislators. That is, until you have a Democrat governor and the political climate so electrically-charged against Democrats that the likelihood of a Democrat being elected in liberal Massachusetts to replace a liberal incumbent with an inoperable brain tumor who is expected to die at any time is almost nil. If the election was held next Tuesday, the Republicans would have a super majority the US House of Representatives, and the GOP would have a 55 to 45 majority in the Senate. Ted Kennedy, one of the most socialist members of the US Senate, knows that only too well.

Kennedy, who knew full well that as a part of the ruling class of America he would never have to submit to the healthcare system he wanted to force on America, devoted most of his Senate career trying to destroy the private healthcare industry because no form of taxation known to man will generate more revenue into the coffers of big government than the taxes they can charge the people of the United States disguised as healthcare "premiums" when the government successfully steal the private health insurance industry and replace it with a mediocre healthcare system controlled by a bureaucracy whose idea of healthcare is spending endless millions of dollars to create brochures on eating healthy foods and washing your hands a cazillion times a day.

Kennedy has apparently now written what the Associated Press called a "...poignant letter" to State leaders (i.e., Democratic mucky-mucks) telling them that with so much at stake in Congress, he felt it was imperative that State law be changed to allow for the speedy replacement of him in the US Senate. The fact that Kennedy did not attend the funeral of his sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver last week fueled speculation that Kennedy was close to the end. His letter to State leaders via the Boston Globe stirred up even more speculation about his imminent fate. Massachusetts State Senate Leader Therese Murray was adamant that since they just changed the law five years ago to accommodate Kennedy, it isn't likely they will be changing it again. House Speaker Robert DeLeo told the Globe that it is not likely that they will back another change, either. There are just so many times you feel justified playing musical chairs.

Stop for a moment and think about this. Wasn't Kennedy the guy bemoaning the fact that, in 2004, the people of the State were being denied their constitutional right to elect their representatives in both the House and Senate? Who does he think he's kidding? Not even the people in Massachusetts who apparently are dumb enough to elect people to Congress who are trying very hard to destroy this nation, are that stupid. But, like every other liberal in Congress, Kennedy wants to have his cake and eat it, too. But then Kennedy, who smells a socialist victory in the air, knows winning or losing the fight for socialized medicine in the Senate could be decided by one vote. Kennedy does not want to die one vote short of his socialist dream even though his dream will become a socialist nightmare for the people of Massachusetts.

Media ignored 429-to-2 House rebuke of Obama
July 29, 2009—If former President George W. Bush had been rebuked by the House of Representatives—particularly when it was controlled by the President's own party—by a margin of 429-to-2, it would have been the lead story on page A-1 in every newspaper in the country. It would not only have headlined the evening news on every TV network, it would have showcased the news with a segment analyzing how the President lost control of his own party. Yet, on July 9, 2009, when the House of Representatives rebuked Resident Barack Hussein Obama for telling Congress he was going to ignore the restrictions they placed on him in the 2010 supplemental spending bill for the State Department, the media—print and electronic—simply ignored the rebuke. In fact, they simply ignored the whole story. It apparently was not "news that was fit to print."

In a signing statement attached to the 2010 funding bill for the State Department and its foreign operations, which was enacted by Congress in June, Obama said that obeying the restrictions mandated by Congress would "...interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations and discussions."

A provision in that legislation required the US Treasury to provide Congress with an ongoing report on the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars in multilateral foreign assistance that would normally be dispersed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund [IMF]. The purpose of that stipulation was to control how US taxpayer funds, designated to foreign nations by the State Department, were spent. The provision was inserted into the 2010 spending bill by Rep. Kay Granger [R-TX], the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, and received enough bipartisan support to became law.

When the Democrats took back both Houses of Congress in Jan., 2007, Bush-43 began using signing statements to vacate specific provisions in laws. On April 10, 1997, the US District Court for DC overturned the line item veto (which was enacted by the Republican Congress and signed into law by former President Bill Clinton on April 6, 1996. Six liberal pork barrel Senators led by Sen. Robert Byrd [D-WV], challenged the line item veto. US District Court Judge Harry Jackson found the line item veto to be unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court remanded the case back to the District Court on June 26, 1997, ordering Jackson to dismiss the case filed by Byrd because, the high court said, the Senators had not proved they had been damaged. Byrd tried again when Clinton erased some pork from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and when he cut two provisions from the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Judge Thomas Hogan of the DC District Court also found the law unconstitutional. This time, in a 6-to-3 decision, the US Supreme Court agreed.

What that means is that Bush-43 could not attaching signing statements, revoking passages or ignoring passages in the laws he was signing—nor can Obama. Invalidate provisions with which he disagrees with that obligate the bureaucracy of the Executive Branch to obey all of the law. Signing statements that invalidate provisions of the law simply aren't a "presidential right by precedent." If Obama is unhappy with the fact that he does not possess the line item veto, he needs to blame Robert Byrd and several senior level pork barrel members of the House and Senate.

When Obama assumed for himself the dictator's imperial purple robe and asserted his authority over Congress by casually dismissing the oversight rules imposed on the Executive Branch in the legislation, the House members were stunned. Granger, who introduced the first measure as an amendment in the State Department funding bill, also introduced the rebuke of Obama that won the 429-to-2 vote to reaffirm the House of Representative's role as the keeper of the pursestrings of the nation with the sole constitutional authority to determine how the government spends the money that belongs not to the government, but to the People of the United States of America.

Senior members of Congress on both sides of the aisle railed at the notion that Obama believed he could arbitrarily ignore legislation they had passed and he had just signed into law. Angered, Barney Frank, one of those who led the fight to enact Obama's healthcare bill, issued a terse statement directed at the White House. "We do this..." the congressional rebuke began "...not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of democracy. There's a kind of unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing statements."

Frank and Congressman Mark Kirk [R-IL] commented that one way to to get presidents to stop issuing signing statements that casually cast portions of the law into a recycle bin was to simply refuse to fund their priorities. The amendment passed will nullify Obama's signing statements—which are unconstitutional—by withholding the allocated funds from any agreement involving the Treasury Department if the Executive Branch fails to follow the conditions established in the supplemental funding bill. "The signal we send to the Treasury is very clear," Kirk said. "Ignore statute at your peril."

ACORN changes its name.
June 22, 2009—After two weeks of Glenn Beck and 14 months of investigations by the FBI for vote fraud, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now [ACORN] has changed its name to Community Organizers International. The new name is branded as a registered trademark. What that means is if the media and/or the blogger community and/or any whistleblowers use their new name in any manner not authorized by The-Organization-Formerly-Known-As-ACORN, they could be liable for monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Even though ACORN is shedding its tarnished shell, they will still attempt to block reporters and bloggers from using their old name to describe The-Organization-Formerly-Known-As-ACORN. ACORN'S general counsel, Arthur Schwartz sent cease and desist orders to Marcel Reid, the current Chairperson of DC ACORN 8 and fired ACORN board member Karen Inman, threatening them with lawsuits.

Inman was fired for asking for the financial records pertaining to the covered-up embezzlement of what was reportedly $1 million by ACORN founder Wade Rathke's brother Dale. When ACORN's board decided to prosecute Dale Rathke for the misappropriation of ACORN funds, the Tides Foundation reimbursed ACORN for its loss. It seems the money crowd that supports ACORN did not want their books opened for scrutiny. In the letter, Schwartz said "...it is a violation of federal and state law for you to use the ACORN name and mark without the written permission of ACORN. Should you continue to do so, you will be liable for monetary and injunctive relief." Schwartz intends to use under trademark or copyright infringement.

Reid told the media that her group, ACORN 8, knew "...for many months that the name ACORN [was] going to be retired. The name has been so damaged to the point where the leadership knows it simply can't go on as it has with the ACORN label out front and center, especially after all of the reporting....ACORN has been decapitated. The senior staff and current national board should be dismantled. The only way to have reform is for the current leadership to be removed completely. We also need a forensic audit." Expect the ACORN audit to take place about a day after the complete audit of the Federal Reserve.

City threatens blind woman with a property
lien over an unpaid utility bill for a penny.
Nov. 20, 2008—-The City of Attleboro, Massachusetts in Bristol County has 43,502 residents—most of whom were shocked yesterday to learn that the city sent a 74-year odl blind woman, Eileen Wilbur, a dun letter for a penny—that cost the taxpayers of the City of Attleboro 42¢ to mail. The letter demanded the immediate payment of an outstanding utility bill—for 1¢. The letter notified Wilbur that if the delinquency was not paid by December 10, the city would place a $48 lien on Wilbur's next property tax bill. If the 1¢ overdue utility bill and the $48 lien for her failure to pay the penny was not paid, her property could then legally be seized for the 1¢ delinquent utility bill or for the unpaid $48 utility lien. The city would then have the right to sell Wilbur's home at public auction. Wilbur, a 49-year resident of the city, has lived at this address, 16 Glenn Street in Attleboro since 1959.

The question that leaves one cause for wonder is, since this penny was due from a prior utility bill, and homeowners pay monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly utility bills everywhere in the nation, why was the penny not simply added to a subsequent bill where it would have been automatically paid by the homeowner when they paid their utilities?

Eileen Wilbur said she learned of the outstanding 1¢ utility bill, and the threatened lien, when her daughter, Rose Brederson, came over to her house to read her mail. (This suggests the city had failed to simply incorporate the overdue amount on her next utility bill, or to attach a note to those bills that there was an overdue amount pending on her account.) The notice was dated Nov. 10, 2008, notifying Wilbur that she had 30 days to cure the default before action would be taken against her. The $48 dollar lien would be assessed on her next property tax bill.

When her daughter read the notice, Wilbur said, "It was so upsetting, it sent my blood pressure up so high. They wasted taxpayer money on the letter," she added, noting the 42¢ cost of the stamp to collect a penny.

When the local Sun Chronicle newspaper questioned Attleboro City Collector Debora Marcoccio about paying 42¢ to dun someone for a penny, Marcoccio defensively responded: "It would have been fiscally irresponsible for me to have staff weed through the bills and pull out any below a certain amount. And what would that amount be?" How about any amount for which it cost more to collect than the city would receive? But, to an illogical bureaucrat—particularly a liberal Blue State illogical bureaucrat—exacting every cent a taxpayer owes is "job one." Marcoccio told the Sun Chronicle reporter that Attleboro is holding firm that any amount owed to the city must be paid, adding that the city would not waive any balance that is due them. "If there's a bill," she said, "it must be paid." Spoken like a true Massachusetts liberal. Is Marcoccio an elected official or a city employee? If she's a city employee, she needs to be fired for displaying a lack of common sense. If she's elected, the people of Attleboro got what they deserve for voting for her.

More and more often, utility companies are
cutting off the lights, the gas and the phone
June 26, 2008—-As gas prices continue skyrocket, what little discretionary income remains in the homes of struggling America dwindles as homeowners struggle to makes ends meet. When consumers can't make their biweekly paychecks stretch to the end of the month, they frantically search for bills they can "put off" which they think will not impact their credit scores. Making hard choices, more and more consumers—even those with solid middle class incomes—opt to skip paying their utility bills believing as long as they pay their credit cards, car payment and mortgages they will maintain their credit scores and, when they really need to, they will be able to borrow their way out of tough times.

A recent survey taken by the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association [NEADA] (which subsidizes home heating and cooling bills for the elderly and the needy) indicated that electricity and gas non-pay shutoffs are up by 15% nationwide—and not just for low income homes in financial distress. The NEADA noted that 8% of the four-member households earning $33 to $55.5 thousand have suffered electricity and gas nonpayment disconnects this year. The disconnects are the result of cold winters in States with moratoriums against non-pay disconnects in the winter months with consumers who failed to catch up by the end of May. The disconnects are escalating as unseasonable heat waves ripple across the nation's heartland.

Most States are reporting increases in service terminations. Detroit Edison reported terminations are up 56%. Edison of Southern California has reported an increase of 14% and People's Gas in Chicago reported non-pay interruptions are up 27%. Duke Energy in North Carolina is averaging about 11 thousands service interruptions a month, or an increase of about 14%. The highest increase reported was from PPL Electric in Pennsylvania which reported a 168% increase over last year. A PPL spokesman noted that the utility will not cut off service until the resident's arrearages exceed $250, and the consumer either refuses to set up a payment plan or reneges on their promise after a payment agreement is made.

Homeowners blame not only the escalating price of gasoline, but the skyrocketing price of food and other commodities for the drain on the family's financial resources. What most consumers don't know is that their credit scores are determined not only on how they pay their credit cards, installment payments, car payment and mortgage, but on how they pay their gas, electric, phone bills and even their car insurance premiums—and whether they shop around for credit. You know the TV ads you see from e.companies like Lending Tree which suggests that smart consumers shop for the best "interest" bargains? Actually, they don't. When they do, their credit scores plummet because it appears they are applying for credit through multiple companies at the same time (which suggests the consumer is in a financial crisis not shopping for the lowest interest rates).

Over 200 illegals using one
housewife's social security number
June 22, 2006—Audra Schmierer realized someone else was using her Social Security number in February, 2005 when she got a notice from the Internal Revenue Service demanding payment of $15,813.00 in back income taxes. Schmierer is an housewife in Dublin, California who has not worked since the birth of her son in 2000. The taxes were due from a job in Texas—somewhere Schmierer has never lived, and from an employer for whom she's never worked.

Schmierer was shocked to learn from the IRS when they checked that dozens of people were using her Social Security number—200 of them to be exact. In 17 States. The federal government knew a lot of different people were using Schmierer's Social Security for quite some time. They' knew because the IRS computers spit out the duplicate use of Social Security numbers whenever they happen—as soon as they happen. When duplicates occur, the Internal Revenue Service assumes its not fraud, and sends letters to the employers notifying them of an error in the use of the offending number. Other than fining the business owner $50 for each inaccurate number submitted, there isn't much the IRS can do. While it is a crime to use someone else's Social Security number, it is not the job of the IRS to track down purveyors of false ID. It's the job of the FBI—but its also one of those authority "gray areas" since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. If ID counterfeiters create bogus identification for illegal aliens, the crime falls under the purview of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] so usually raids on bogus ID mills are joint FBI and ICE operations.

Schmierer was told by the IRS that over 81 people were currently earning incomes on her Social Security number. When she started digging, Schmierer obtained over 200 W-2s and 1099 tax forms that contained her Social Security number but different names. The IRS assured her that the erroneous tax bills would be wiped out. But, they warned her, the problem was going to continue as long as illegal aliens were able to buy bogus ID containing her Social Security number since Social Security numbers aren't like credit card numbers where you simply cancel the card and issue a new number.

Laborers from Florida to Washington State were using her Social Security number to secure employment in construction, high tech companies and fast food restaurants. Some of those using it were men. Some were women. Information gleaned from FBI investigations of many of them determined that the majority of the users of Schmierer's Social Security number were illegal immigrants. Illegals purchase phony identification from underground ID mills that can be found in every urban center in the country. The going rate for a bogus Social Security card, green card or driver's license is $80 to $125. If the "customer" is Muslim the price could be higher since the quality of the workmanship will have to be much better. Most counterfeiters can turn out an ID package consisting of all three documents within 30 minutes to three hours for the typical Mexican "customer."

Some of the documents are good enough to fool a cop checking a pedestrian's ID, but most of them aren't good enough to fool a computer if the ID is run for warrants. Unfortunately, most of the employers who hire illegals aren't concerned about whether or not their identification is genuine—or even if its poor quality. They simply want to cover their butts in case an ICE agents asks to check the I-9 completed by the job applicant to make sure they possessed a green card, a Social Security card and a drivers' license when they applied for their job.

Around 6 a.m. on Tuesday, June 20 FBI and ICE agents raided a two-bedroom apartment on 16th St. NW in Washington, DC. They woke the eight Hispanic men who were sleeping there and arrested them. Taken into custody were Eladio Espinoza-Cuevas, 50; Andrews Angel Vasquez-Soriano, 41; Alberto Martin Vasquez-Soriano, 40; Luis Vasquez, 33; Julio Cesar Pacheco-Vasquez, 24; Cesar Cuevas-Mendez, 24; Luis Angel Mendez-Hernandez, 21; and Juan Antonio Pacheco-Vasquez, 20. Luis Vasquez faces federal charges for immigration fraud. The others face similar charges, but will likely be deported instead of charged.

Agents found more than 100 fake documents in the apartment. The feds also found electronic devises used to counterfeit the documents they sold. Also found was about $14 thousand in cash. The ring that was broken is thought to be part of an international ID ring run by the Castorena-Ibarra family—whose leader was just arrested in Mexico.

ICE agents said the ring distributes their bogus IDs throughout the country, They have ties with groups in Detroit, Baltimore and Chicago. These group has been under surveillance by ICE since shortly after 9-11. The task force has already arrested 195 people. All of them except one were illegal aliens. Most of them were Mexican although Hispanics from other Central American countries were also arrested. Over 10 thousand counterfeit documents with a street value of more than a million dollars were seized. The federal government prosecuted 60 illegals thus far. Some were charged with aggravated identity theft—which carries a minimum of 2 years in prison; others were charged with counterfeiting fraudulent immigration documents which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years and a fine of $250 thousand.

There is little satisfaction for people like Audra Schmierer who have had their Social Security numbers stolen and can expect, every two to three years, to receive a letter from the IRS dunning them for unpaid taxes and penalties or threatening them with jail for not filing a 1040 on income earned in Texas, California, or somewhere else she's never been.

Greenspan warns of bubble on "exotic" mortgages
June 21, 2005—Everyone's buying a new home. Home ownership in America is skyrocketing—so are the unsustainable prices not only of new homes but existing homes whose appraised values have likewise skyrocketed because of the tremendous increase in home building both east and west of the Mississippi . And that, according to Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is a major part of the problem now facing the Fed and the American banking community. The other part of the problem is centered around some of the creative financing and exotic home loans being offered to new home buyers and existing home owners seeking to refinance their homes to lower their current mortgage payments.

What disturbs Greenspan most is the explosion of interest-only home loans (for the first year or two that help home buyers qualify for homes they could not otherwise afford—and should not be buying) and what the chairman describes as "exotic" adjustable-rate mortgages over the last 12 months to bolster the housing market when it began to sag. Further, unscrupulous mortgage brokers who earn an income only when they sell a mortgage, are persuading cash-strapped home owners who "overbought" five or ten years ago to refinance with an adjustable rate or modified rate debt-consolidation mortgage to reduce their monthly outlay. Mortgage brokers earn the sale by showing the home owner repayment schedules that include all of the debts to be consolidated in the new adjustable rate mortgage verses the new mortgage payment minus all other debt. Cash-strapped home owners think they just discovered the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It looks good on paper, but people who abuse credit cards will suddenly find, with all their credit cards paid off, they have a lot of available credit to abuse all over again.

Greenspan told the Washington Times that the majority of the new home-purchase loans today are designed to minimize initial monthly payments so the buyers can qualify for more expensive homes than they could otherwise buy. The loan brokers, in selling mortgages to the prospective buyer, suggest that, in three to five years, the prospective home owners' incomes will increase exponentially and they will be in a better position to pay the whole mortgage payment. To encourage them to sign, they remind them that if they decide to wait, within three to five years—when they can afford the home they are considering—with rising prices, they won't be able to buy that home since it will likely double in value by then.

If the mortgage broker finds the unsuspecting buyers a mortgage that offers both a variable interest rate and a modified principle clause, the home buyers are setting themselves up for a foreclosure sale before they ever move into their new home. As long as interest rates remain extremely low, the home buyer will be relatively safe. However, if interest rates rise substantially about the same time the exemption from paying any of the principle expires, the homeowner is going to have a mortgage payment 30% to 50% higher than it was when the home was purchased. On a $400 thousand to $600 thousand home, a principle-free, adjustable rate mortgage might start as low as $2,500 a month—and unexpectedly mushroom to $3,500 to $4,000 or more a month with no warning. Mortgage brokers aren't concerned whether or not you can afford the payments on your new home once the papers are signed. They get paid for originating the loan.

"To be sure," Greenspan admitted, "these financing vehicles have their appropriate uses. But to the extent that some households may be employing these instruments to purchase a home that would otherwise be unaffordable, their use is beginning to add to the pressure in the marketplace." Greenspan noted that the bubble in some of the nation's hottest real estate markets is due to the drop in interest rates and the exotic mortgage packages being offered to people who probably cannot afford the homes they are buying. But even more troubling to Greenspan is reversal pricing. During a housing boom, home prices spiral upward because of the demand. Real estate brokers know, in many markets, the homeowner's asking price is the place where prospective purchasers begin bidding for the home. But as Greenspan noted, when the bubble bursts—and they always do—reverse pricing results when reality sinks in and demand establishes the new value of the home.

Just as reality caused the i-tech bubble to burst when the overpriced internet stocks collapsed and retirement accounts vanished overnight, reverse pricing will topple the inflated values of a ton of million dollar homes. All that will be left of the unrealistic value of the homes will be the tax assessments. When home sales die in any market, foreclosure rates increase proportionately—and Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, or HUD take the financial hit since they guaranteed the loans to the mortgage banks that extended the credit. But ultimately it is the taxpayers who discover they are paying for million dollar public housing units that no one except the welfare crowd can afford.

Greenspan noted that "...although we can't rule out home-price declines, especially in some local markets, these declines, were they to occur, likely would not have substantial macro-economic implications." That will be of little a comfort to the middle-income couples who buy a new $750 thousand home, live in it for a year or two, get transferred, and discover when realtors try to sell their beautiful albatross that—in that particular post-bubble "local" real estate market—$750 thousand dollar homes are now selling for $450 thousand.

By the way, does it seem strange to you that Greenspan noted the residential building boom is international? It doesn't seem strange to me. He also suggested that he is clueless why this international building boom is taking place. Perhaps we should tell him. The residential home building boom, fed by billions of dollars from the world's richest industrialists who have an interest in making it appear that the world economy—and in particular the economies of the industrial nations that are losing roughly 30% of all of their jobs to the emerging nations—is healthy when it's not. The building boom in the emerging nations—where affordable shelter is desperately needed—is a visible sign to the people in the developing nations that prosperity has finally found them. In reality, all that is really happening is that the wealthy industrialists and bankers are simply investing in the human capital whose sweat equity will turn the wheels of commerce for the New World Order as world government replaces the nation-states during this, or the next, decade.