Welcome to National News & Commentary

Just click on INDEX to take you to a complete listing of all articles appearing on this page

Random Thoughts on the Presidential Race (November 10, 2008)

The country has elected the most radical leftwing socialist the Senate has to offer for President and the 3^rd most radical leftwing socialist from the Senate for Vice President. One should never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter. While it’s true, the majority of voters get the government they deserve, it’s the rest of us that I worry about.

For whatever reason, the main stream media, liberals in general, and Democrats in particular, obsess over a candidate’s skin color. They consider race to be a qualifying factor for president or anything else for that matter and rule out qualifications for the position. I prefer competency and integrity in my elected officials and could care less about the color of one’s skin. Martin Luther King, Jr. had it right; a person’s character trumps skin color every time. Ironically, Obama is not the first black person to be elected President. His mother was Caucasian. That makes Obama mulatto, not black but when does the media care about accuracy in reporting?

As for the first African-American to be elected president, what’s with this hyphenation of one’s nationality? Either one is an American or not. Africa isn’t even a country and not all Africans are black. If the media insists on going this route, Kenyan-American would be more accurate. At least it would be consistent with Mexican-American, Italian-American, Irish American, German-American, and other ridiculous categories.

The bright side is that now that a person of color has been elected to the highest office in the land it should put race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton out of business. It should – but it won’t. They just have too much of a good thing going. I wonder, since a far greater percentage of blacks voted for Obama than the percentage of whites who voted for McCain, which group is the more racist?

Now that Obama has won the presidency, will there be further cover-ups of his constitutional eligibility to run for the office?

Now that Obama has been elected president, how are the stock market and your plans for retirement coming along?

What would have been more historically significant is for Sarah Palin to have been elected vice president. She’d be the first female to do so. After all, the last group to become franchised to vote in this country was women. Women had a longer road to travel simply to get the right to vote. Curiously, the majority of unmarried women voted for her opponent. I guess they saw Governor Palin as too principled.

Obama supporters claimed conservatives opposed Obama because of his race and therefore are racists. By the same reasoning, liberals opposed McCain because of the sex of his vice president and therefore are sexists. Consider: Obama had a strong choice in Hillary Clinton for vice president but passed her over. If there is a “glass ceiling” it should be clear that it’s the Democrats who created it. 

Michelle Malkin summarized in a recent column, “Hollywood savaged Palin. Journalists mocked her. Liberal blogs slimed her. Opponents cursed her, Photoshopped her, hacked her e-mail, hanged her in effigy, called her bigot, Bible-thumper and bimbo, and attacked her husband and children.” Yet Democrats claim they’re the compassionate ones. Yeah, right!

It’s amazing that after two years of Democratic control of Congress leading to the highest gas prices in our history, the worst financial crises we’ve had since 1929, the largest “bail out” of financial and related institutions we’ve ever had, the largest debt deficits we’ve ever experienced and with confidence ratings running around 10 percent, the voters rewarded them by voting more Democrats into office. Go figure.

Now that Democrats are back in control of the three branches of government, who are they going to blame when things go wrong during their watch?

The survey results are in: Obama received the highest number of votes from welfare recipients and non-taxpayers than any candidate in history. Another first!

One lesson learned in this year’s presidential election is that beyond any doubt, the main stream media is so politically liberal that they think nothing of placing their interests above country. It’s obvious that they can’t be trusted to fairly and accurately report the news or to separate news from editorial opinion. The only remaining source available for accuracy in the media is the internet. Watch the Democrats try to control that next.

The greatest propaganda machine the Democrats have is the main stream media. Add that to the fact that the majority of voters are easily manipulated and, by and large, are controlled by the media and one realizes what a threat they are to this country. If it were not so, the masses wouldn’t have believed the beginning of the millennium began in the year 2000 and not 2001?

All things considered and in the spirit of unity, we should show the newly elected president the same kind of respect and support for him as the Democrats have shown his Republican predecessor.

And remember Klee’s Law: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” (Thomas Jefferson)

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

The Moral Hazard of Regulation (November 10, 2008)

Texas Straight talk by Rep. Ron Paul

Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation.  In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.

It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient.  It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating.  They are making their best guesses when formulating rules.  It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow.  Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void.  For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates.  Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats.  They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe.  How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?  Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested.   It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement.  Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education.  After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test.  But, this does not guarantee educational excellence.  Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.  Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is?  Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it?  I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case.  Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.

These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy.  With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats.  The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes.  The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged. 

Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy.  This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in.  Rather, it will only exacerbate it.

The Obama-Fannie Mae Connection (November 3, 2008)

In 2005, speaking in favor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, John McCain addressed the Senate: “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – known as government sponsored entities or GSEs – and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role the play in the housing markets.”

As reported in the news, McCain pointed out that Fannie Mae’s regulator had stated the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were, “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management that resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Reform Act bill that McCain supported passed the House but was never brought up for a vote in the Senate, largely because of Democratic opposition including that of Obama who was a member of the Senate since 2004, to change the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory structure,.

Three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives became “subjects of interest” in the current investigation of the financial crises had earned millions in compensation despite a continuing series of financial scandals: Franklin Raines ($90 million), former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson ($21 million), former aide to Democratic Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick ($26 million), former Clinton administration deputy attorney general, according to author David Frum, a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.

Gorelick, you may recall, was the author of a memo that hand-tied federal agents in their investigation of terrorist activities by limiting their access to federal records and data bases, information that may have averted the 9/11 tragedy. Yet, she ended up on the 9/11 Commission to investigate the matter!

In a Washington Post article, Johnson and Raines have been described as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.” Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters while Obama chose Johnson to head up his vice presidential selection committee. In addition, Johnson reportedly raised as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign. Once the Obama-Raines-Johnson connection surfaced and other Raines/Johnson improprieties became known and the “bailout” was pending, Obama dropped his affiliation with them like a hot potato. Sunlight can be a powerful disinfectant.

Why did Obama buddy up to corrupt Fannie Mae officials even to the extent of using them to work on various aspects of his campaign? Why did he accept financial contributions from individuals who were suspect of fraudulent practices that ultimately caused the financial crises we are now experiencing? Why did Obama repeatedly oppose attempts to put stricter limitations via regulations on Fannie Mae? Simply stated: follow the money.

Of the 25 top recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, from 1989 to 2008, 16 were Democrats. In fact, during the last two years with Democrats in control of Congress, Fannie Mae has given 56 percent of their total of $1.1 in campaign contributions to Democrats. Freddie Mac has given 53 percent of its $555,700 in campaign contributions to Democrats.

Here are the top four Senators who received campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, all Democrats:

Christopher J. Dodd, $133,900

John Kerry, $111,000

Barack Hussein Obama, 105,849

Hillary Clinton, $75,550

Obama is number three on the list of recipients receiving the most money from Fannie Mae. No wonder Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress wanted to bail them and Wall Street out – at taxpayer expense. It’s a cash cow for them.

On top of the close to $1 trillion bail out package that this and future generations are being stuck with, Obama is on record for wanting to give all illegal aliens Social Security benefits and Medicaid, and full healthcare coverage. By Obama’s own count, that amounts to 12 million illegal aliens to whom he wants to extend welfare benefits, grant amnesty and citizenship.

On top of that he supports the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens – in spite of the fact that 13 of the 19 terrorists directly responsible for 9/11 were issued such licenses. Adding insult to injury, Obama’s response to the “English Only” proposition favored by the majority of citizens is for all American children to learn Spanish.

One might debate the necessity of the government bailing out Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac and other financial and financial-related institutions but there should be no debate as to where the money should come from to pay for it – and it shouldn’t come at additional cost to taxpayers. Simply go to the last cost item approved by Congress and cut it from the budget. Then continue in work backwards until the required amount of bail out money is reached. In words that even a socialist like Obama can understand, “Cut spending!”

And remember Klee’s Law: “The welfare state has always been judged by its good intentions, rather than its bad results.” (Thomas Sowell)

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

NOTE: The telecast that follows updates some of the figures and information in the above article

The Obama-Kenyan Connection (November 3, 2008)

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.” Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

The current controversy surrounding Barack Hussein Obama, and there are many, is whether Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.

A copy of Obama’s purported “Certificate of Live Birth” was published on his campaign web site indicating he was born in 1961 in Hawaii but the document has been challenged as being a forgery.

A notice was published in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser under the “Births, Marriages, Deaths” section, on page B-6: “Mr and Mrs. Barack II Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4.” No listing of the hospital where the Obama son or the delivering doctor was indicated.

Aside form the question of the authenticity of the “Certificate of Live Birth” published on Obama’s campaign web site, the newspaper listing tends to support Obama’s claim to Hawaiian birth but it appears to have been sent to the newspaper by a suspect source.

A lawsuit was filed recently by former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania Phillip J. Berg alleging Obama is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States. Although the lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality i.e. lack of standing, Berg, in support of his complaint professes to have in his possession a recording of a telephone call made by Obama’s Kenyan paternal grandmother alleging she witnessed Obama’s birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya on August 4, 1961.

As further alleged, Obama’s mother was near the end term of her pregnancy and unable to travel by plane, hence the Kenyan birth. The family later traveled to Hawaii and registered his birth there and submitted the newspaper announcement. That, arguably, is how the newspaper got their information – from the Obamas, not from any official source.

Berg does not have a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate that allegedly exists. The government of Kenya has stated that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the United States presidential election on November 4. The significance of the November 4 election date suggests this rather unusual dictate as politically motivated and tends to support the argument against Obama’s eligibility to run for office. What’s to hide?

Berg claims that Obama has “legally” admitted the truth of his allegations regarding Obama’s Kenyan birth by failing to respond to his complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36. Rule 36, however, applies to requests for admissions served on an opposing party and not the effect of a failure to respond to a complaint. Obama did timely respond to the complaint.

When served with a complaint in federal court, a defendant has a limited period of time in which to file a responsive pleading i.e. 20 days. Certain motions can and must be made before pleading to the complaint i.e. answering the complaint by denial or admission in part or in whole. One of the responses may be a motion for judgment on the pleadings which is basically a motion to dismiss. If granted, the defendant is under no obligation to take any further action regarding the complaint i.e. they need not answer and no “admission” can be drawn from their failure to do so.

In sum, Berg’s claim of Obama having “admitted” to the facts in Berg’s complaint by failing to answer the complaint is without merit.

Adding more curiosity to Obama’s birth mystery is the trip Obama took on October 24 to visit his ailing grandmother. Shortly after that visit, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle placed Obama’s birth certificate under seal, and instructed the state’s Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances. Reportedly, the move was politically motivated but sources would no reveal whether Obama’s birth certificate would be favorable or unfavorable to Obama, although one might speculate that it would be unfavorable. Again, why go to such lengths to hide it?

A similar court case has been filed in Washington state in an attempt to have the Washington Secretary of State “verify Obama’s eligibility” to serve prior to the election. In this case, the plaintiff claims that the “Certificate of Birth” is not the same as a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii and fails to name where Obama was born and therefore is not determinative of Obama’s eligibility.

The Washington complaint alleges that a research team went to Mambassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenyan Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. Jerome Corsi, senior World Net Daily investigator, recently traveled to Kenya to investigate several questions about the candidate and was told the records were sealed and would not be made available. Again, someone is going to great lengths to suppress any information as to Obama’s birth.

The Washington complaint further alleges, “If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship, much less the status of ‘natural born.’”

Further supporting the Obama Article II, Section 1 eligibility problem was after Obama’s mother divorced his father, she remarried and moved to Indonesia for several years and Obama attended school there at the time. Berg said, only Indonesia citizens were allowed in schools and that records are available from Indonesia revealing Obama was registered in school as Barry Soetoro, and his religion was listed as Muslim.

In addition, there should have been government documentation affirming Obama’s citizenship when he returned to Hawaii, within the United States, but these documents are also missing, according to Berg. Berg conjectures if his return was not processed properly, Obama would be in a situation even worse than not being a natural-born citizen: He might be an illegal alien!

Obama’s college records have been withheld by the Obama campaign that may reveal he received foreign aid. “I think it’s because it probably indicates he’s from Kenya, or Indonesia, or received foreign aid,” said Berg. More cover-ups?

Obama refuses and continues to refuse to clear up this cloud over his eligibility by producing his original birth certificate for examination by a neutral party.

Wherever the truth lies, I pray that the government agency responsibility for assuring conformance with Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution with respect to presidential eligibility investigates and clear up this mess once and for all. Failing that, and Obama is elected, I fear he will never be accepted as president of the United States by the majority of citizens.

And remember Klee’s Law: “Today there are more Marxists on the Harvard faculty than there are in Eastern Europe.” (George Will)

2008 Harvey H. Klee 

The telecast that follows depicts Obama's fraudulent birth certificate and presents additional information questioning Obama's claim to being a "natural born " citizen of the United States.

Spending the Economy into Oblivion (November 3, 2008)

By Representative Ron Paul

With news this week that Congress is poised to consider a new stimulus package, I am forced to again ask a question that seems silly in Washington:  How will we pay for this?

While a few Members of Congress have raised the issue, it certainly was not the primary concern of the House Budget Committee when they interviewed Ben Bernanke on Monday.  And, when they did direct this question to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, his answer was the standard rhetoric about how Congress needed to make tough choices.  Needless to say, not many specifics were discussed.

One of the most liberal members of the House, Barney Frank, has at least volunteered something of a suggestion: “We can let Iraq take care of itself.”  This, of course, goes in the right direction, but hardly far enough.

We need to declare the facts and their obvious consequences.  The deficit of the United States is now spiraling out of control, and the recent bailout package has only made it worse.  Our crushing federal debt is one key reason behind our current economic turbulence.

As Congress begins to consider the third “stimulus package” of the year, we need to realize it is time to start setting priorities.  Priority number one should be cutting spending in foreign countries. This does not simply mean Iraq, but everywhere.

The next stimulus package is likely to include money for infrastructure.  While these investments are, constitutionally speaking, supposed to be made by state and local governments, it is not likely that Congress will suddenly begin to pay heed to the document we are all sworn to uphold.  Still, we need to acknowledge the fact that the current Congress and Administration are rushing the nation toward bankruptcy.

This being the case, we could hope they would at least come to their senses regarding our debt and foreign spending sprees.  Our nation’s foreign-held debt is at record highs and moving ever higher.  Continuing to borrow money from Red China and others in order to pay “dues” to the United Nations and run “Plan Colombia” makes no sense at all.

Our whole carrot-and-stick approach to foreign policy makes no sense.  The US government simultaneously gives money to Israel, and to Egypt.  We send AIDS money to Africa while AIDS clinics in America shut down.  “Millennium challenge” funding goes to countries which enact “market based reforms” as we push our own country further and further into a centrally planned economy.

Economic recovery will only come through financial prudence, savings and getting back to producing things of value again.  But it seems to be a foregone conclusion that we are about to enact another government initiative to “stimulate the economy.”   Instead, there should be some serious talk about cutting all of these foreign giveaway programs.  But, alas and again, we should not hold our breath.  Congress is still not close to being serious about ending its addiction to debt and spending, and is again faced with the deadly temptation to attempt to spend us out of a recession.  We should not forget that in the 1930’s those types of efforts gave us the Great Depression. 

The Barack Hussein Obama, William Ayers & ACORN Connection

Should Obama get elected, “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. We’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy…it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.” (Joe Biden, Obama’s Vice Presidential running mate)

The Obama-Acorn Connection (October 27. 2008)

Obama carries more excess baggage than Amtrak. The Acorn connection is just one of many of his radical leftist ties. I mentioned in my article, “The Obama-Rezko Connection. A Manchrian Candidate?” that Obama moved to Chicago after his graduation from Columbia University where he worked as a “community organizer.” The outfit he worked for was ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) which has been in the news lately regarding voter fraud in Nevada. ACORN has been previously convicted in numerous, massive voter fraud scandals. Meanwhile,  the FBI is looking into whether ACORN has attempted to "foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election." .

ACORN is a national organization with more than 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities throughout the country as well as in Argentina, Canada, Mexico and Peru. It was born out of the civil rights movement in the 60’s.  In addition to their voter registration activities, they strongly lobby for gun control, leftist education policies, and the regulation of banks, targeting the lending practices of major financial institutions it sees as “predatory.” At times their protests have turned violent.

With Obama’s ACORN connections, it looks like we’re in for another Al Gore-type attempt to steal the 2008 Presidential election even before the votes are in. Of course Obama denies the ACORN connection claiming he was “never an ACORN organizer, or any type of employee” and further that, “ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.”

But that dog won’t hunt. In 1992, as reported by Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily, Obama was the director of Project Vote in Chicago. They were able to register 150,000 voters on the city’s South Side. Obama was credited with their success and helping to elect Democratic Senator Carol Mosely Braun. There is no doubt that Project Vote was part of ACORN. Its organization papers show that Project Vote is a trademark name whose parent company is registered at the same New Orleans address in which ACORN and several ACORN affiliates are housed.

Obama himself acknowledged as much before an ACORN meeting: “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drives in Illinois, ACORN was smack in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

Further, Obama conducted two-hour long leadership training sessions for ACORN in the late 1990’s as an unpaid trainer. Obama was recruited to train ACORN activists by Madeleine Talbot, ACORN’s Chicago director. Talbot was later arrested for attempting to storm a City Hall meeting along with several other members of the organization.

Obama and other Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit on behalf of ACORN forcing the State of Illinois to implement the federal “motor-voter” bill which has since been shown to be bereft of legitimate voter registrations. ACORN reciprocated when Obama solicited and received their endorsement for his local campaigns.

Obama strongly supported ACORN issues when state Senator and ACORN again, rewarded him by endorsing his candidacy for President. They continue to scratch each other’s back. Earlier this year, Obama’s campaign paid more than $800,000 in services to Citizen Services Inc., a nonprofit offshoot of ACORN for “stage, lighting and sound.” The problem is CSI does not offer services for “stage, lighting and sound.” When challenged by the Federal Election Commission, Obama’s campaign amended their FEC reports to claim the payments to CSI were for get-out-the-vote efforts. This follows the principle: don’t amend unless you get caught.

As former Pennsylvania State Supreme Court Justice Sandra Newman recently stated regarding ACORN’s involvement in voter registration, “[There is] potential of massive voter fraud…I am not confident we can get a fair election” on November 4. ACORN had submitted the majority of 252,595 voter registrations in Philadelphia, of which 57,435 were rejected due to faulty social security numbers, incorrect dates of birth, “clearly fraudulent” signatures, addresses that did not exist and duplicate registrations.

A CBS news investigation showed similar problems across the nation. ACORN workers who were interviewed said they were pressured to meet quotas and copied names out of phone books, signed up inmates, and registered the dead. Sounds like good, old fashion Chicago politics to me. A number of ACORN workers are now serving time for their offenses or have been indicted awaiting trial but it doesn’t seem to discourage them.

ACORN isn’t even honest within its own ranks. The brother of ACORN founder, Wade Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million form ACORN and affiliated charitable organizations between 1999 and 2000.

CBS concluded its investigation stating: “Whether simple error or outright fraud, the charges surrounding ACORN are already raising doubts about the integrity of the upcoming election in key parts of the country.”

Contrary to Obama’s disclaimer, Barack Hussein Obama has been part and parcel of ACORN starting about 10 years ago and his association continues up to their present endorsement of him for President.

My thanks to Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily and official Obama web site blogger Sam Graham-Felson for much of the information contained in this article.

Obama’s elitist view of his fellow citizens: “… it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

The Obama-Ayers Connection (October 20, 2008)

Judgment, character and integrity are terms that might seem antiquated in these political times when charisma and smooth talk are given credence over the details of a man’s life. Such is the case with Barack Hussein Obama where the media darling seems to prevail.

For those who weren’t around then, or were simply out to lunch at the time, a little background is needed. Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were leaders of a terrorist group called the Weather Underground aka the Weathermen, during the 1960-70’s. The Weather Underground was an anti-Vietnam War group that bombed federal buildings including the U.S. Capital Building, New York City Police Headquarters, the Pentagon and the National Guard offices in Washington D.C. When interviewed in 2001 Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Dohrn is best remembered for her comments following the Mansion Family murders in which Sharon Tate, who was pregnant at the time, and a Folgers coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!”

Dohrn also built and planted the bomb that killed a San Francisco police officer in 1970 according to an FBI report. Another officer was seriously wounded and partially blinded in the attack.

Ayers and his wife went underground. They eventually were caught and arrested but got off on technicalities. Upon his release he said, “Guilty as hell, free as a bird – America is a great country. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Chicago while Dohrn is a professor at Northwest University, also in Chicago. They remain as radical as ever.

These are the kinds of people to which Obama cuddles up yet claims he only served on a charitable foundation board with Ayers. Once again, however, the slippery-tongued extreme left-wing radical has been caught in a lie. His relationship with Ayers goes much deeper than that.

First off, Obama and Ayers were closely aligned with each other while working on the board of the Annenberg Challenge Project for seven years during which their paths repeatedly crossed. Ayers was asked to help Obama formulate the Annenberg Challenge by-laws and later, was instrumental in getting Obama appointed to chair the Project. They also served together as board members for another foundation, the Woods Fund. Among those receiving money form the foundation were Jeremy “God Damn America” Wright’s Trinity United Church and a center where Dohrn worked. I guess Obama is a strong believer in charity beginning at home.

In 1995, in the home of Ayers and Dohrn, Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her political heir-apparent when she decided to run for Congress. Senator Palmer did not organize the meeting, she was invited. Basically it was Obama’s political coming-out party hosted by Ayers. Ayers contributed financially to Obama’s political campaign.

Ayer’s book on the juvenile justice system won him a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Obama. They have also appeared jointly on two academic panels, one in 1997 and another in 2002. When Ayers made his statement, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough,” Obama was 40 years old and serving with Ayers on the Woods Fund of Chicago at the time. It was during that time that Ayers posed standing on an American flag for an article in Chicago Magazine entitled, “No Regrets.” In other words, Ayers radicalism wasn’t confined to when Obama was 8 years old as Obama claims.

Aside from their professional and social relationship, Obama and Ayers are neighbors in Chicago’s Hyde Park.

Now before someone cries foul and complain about guilt by association, arguing that even Jesus associated with thieves and prostitutes realize that Jesus was there to save them from their sins – not to join them in common cause. Contrary to Farrakhan’s belief, Obama is not the Messiah, as the radical leader of the Nation of Islam announced at a convention recently.

Now there’s an endorsement one would think Obama would decline. But since his endorsers and supporters include admitted terrorist William Ayers and Weatherman Underground leader Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah A Wright, Jr., Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, the New Black panthers, the New SDS, and a host of other radical organizations and individuals, perhaps Farrakhan’s endorsement is welcomed.

I realize the main stream media has been noticeably silent on issues concerning Obama’s judgment, character and integrity and for good cause- they are not flattering to their chosen one, Barack Hussein Obama. When the truth is brought up either in debate, discussion or through secondary sources, those commenting on Obama’s record are criticized as engaging in “negative” tactics, as if telling the truth is a negative. Contrary to the MSM, I believe it’s imperative that we know all that we can about a candidate’s background before they’re elected to public office rather then after. 

Protests against revealing Obama’s background remind me of the lawyer’s joke where the defense attorney jumps up and objects to a perfectly legitimate question of a witness by the prosecuting attorney. “On what grounds,” asks the judge. “On the grounds that the prosecution is making my client appear guilty, your honor,” replied the defense attorney. In Obama’s case, the truth is not likely to set him free.

And remember Klee’s Law: “Truth is mighty and shall prevail.”

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

The Obama-Rezco Connection (October 13, 2008)

A Manchurian Candidate?

Political rhetoric abounds throughout this presidential race as in all past elections but this season it seems a major emphasis is being made to cover up one’s past. To quote Barack Hussein Obama, “You can put lipstick on a pig but it will still be a pig.” So I decided to check into what he was talking about - although perhaps not in the way he meant.

First, there’s the question as to whether Obama is qualified to run for President based on his questionable birth credentials which he refuses to produce in order to remove all doubt once and for all.

Then, around 1979 Obama attended Occidental College in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental; he tried all kinds of drugs while an undergraduate, including cocaine and admitted he was wasting his time in school. Even though he was bright, he didn’t apply himself to his studies.

"Barry" (that was the name he used then) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. He stopped to see his mother in Indonesia, and then he went off to Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then to Africa to visit his father's family. Where he got the money for this trip is highly suspect. It’s not likely a college student can come up with that kind of money by himself.

The financial backing gets even more curious. When he came back from his “world travels” he started school at Columbia University in New York.  This is when he insisted people call him Barack - not Barry. Tuition at Columbia is not cheap. Add on the cost of books, room and board, and incidentals and you’re talking about some serious money. Who footed the bills? Perhaps he had a scholarship or received a student loan but I found no information to confirm either.

After his graduation from Columbia University, Obama went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why the attraction to Chicago when he already was living in New York was explained in short order. By "chance,” he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was born in Aleppo Syria, and was a very successful real estate developer in Chicago.  Rezko was convicted of fraud and bribery this year before he was earlier named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association.

About two years later after making contact with Rezko, Obama entered Harvard Law School. If you thought Columbia University was expensive, you should see the tuition costs at Harvard Law School! Again, there’s the additional cost of books, room and board, etc. on top of all that. It appears that someone was backing Obama financially and grooming him for bigger and better things in the future and that someone was Tony Rezko.

After law school, Obama returned to Chicago where Rezko offered him a job but he turned it down.  Instead, he accepted a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland but the Rezco relationship wasn’t far away. The law firm represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's corporation.

Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for state office in Chicago.  Obama won election to the Illinois State Senate by being the only candidate on the ballot. He did it by hiring a specialist skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates' petitions based on whatever technicality he could come up with.

Incidentally, Obama’s run for the Illinois 13^th State Senate District in 1996 was endorsed by the New Party of which he was a member. The New Party was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to advance the socialist movement. Candidates had to be approved by the New Party political committee and sign a contract to the effect that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race later on.

In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in the Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million which was considerably less than the asking price. Again, with his extensive earlier travels and tuition and related costs at two Ivy League Universities, where did he get the money for the property? 

On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price.  The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased.  Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko. In light of all this, the Obama-Rezco alliance is unquestionable.

Michele Obama, Obama’s wife, worked for Valerie Jarrett when Jarrett was Deputy Chief of Staff for Chicago’s Mayor, Richard Daley. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. She’s known as “the other half of Obama’s brain.” She was born in Shiraz, Iran. Both Obama and his wife, Michelle, seem to be closely aligned with the corrupt political machine in Chicago. But the Middle East connection and financing gets decidedly more disturbing.  

In May, 2008 it was reported that Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with the terrorist organization Hamas which controls Gaza and has close ties with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things." That, readers, is treasonous conduct.

Remember Obama’s college roommates that were born in Pakistan?  They are now in charge of all those internet campaign contributions for Obama.  Where is that money coming from - the poor and middle class in this country or the Middle East?

To answer the question, it was learned that two Palestinian brothers, Monir and Hosam Edwan, living within the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Obama’s campaign. Donations of this nature violate election laws, including prohibitions on receiving contributions from foreigners and guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election.

To top it off, on September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a Freudian slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos.  Obama, on talking about his religion referred to, "My Muslim faith." When questioned, he said, he made a mistake. 

All of the above information is factual and available to anyone going on line to check it out. That is, anyone who gives a damn about their country. You won’t hear about it in the mainstream media because they function as an extension of the Democratic Party and are doing their best to get Obama elected as the next President of the United States.

And remember Klee’s Law: “Those believing they have not voted are mistaken, for their indifference affects all our futures.” (M.A. Denck)

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

BAILOUT BASICS – Part 3 (October 20, 2008)

By Mark Alexander

"The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)" Patriot Post Vol. 08 No. 39 Digest

WHAT ABOUT A FREE-MARKET SOLUTION?

I concur, of course, with the principled objections from free-market advocates and hope that free-market solutions will be re-implemented in conjunction with the necessary mortgage backup. If not, the cure may be worse than the disease. After all, it was the suspension of free-market principles that got us into this mess.

But I agree with President Bush's comments regarding the necessity of

intervention:  "I'm a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There's been a widespread loss of confidence. And major sectors of America's financial system are at risk of shutting down."

Further, he is correct in this assessment: "More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession."

It is worth noting that $700 billion is a bargain compared to the implications for taxpayers if the economy spirals into a severe recession---or worse.

CAN ANY OF THIS COLOSSAL EXPENSE BE RECOVERED?

Fortunately, there are real assets backing up these mortgages---bricks and mortar, and the land upon which the foundations rest---but this is no "deal for taxpayers."

While much of this mortgage backing may be recovered, as was the case with the savings and loan bailout of 1989, to suggest that the "taxpayers will be paid back" is ludicrous.

Congress is going to serve as the "watchdog" over the dispensing and recovery of these funds? Can you say, "fox in the henhouse"?

Even if Congress sets up a "trust fund" in order to use recovered funds to pay down the debt incurred to back financial institutions, we should consider that "lockbox" to be as safe as the Social Security Trust Fund lockbox. Every dime paid into Social Security has been spent on government programs, leaving that fund with a bunch of IOUs.

No doubt, every dime recovered from the private sector will be treated as revenue to expand government programs, and the debt will be left on the books.

To pay for the bailout, Democrats are sure to demand higher taxes from "the rich Wall Street fat cats who got us into this mess." While this mess clearly ended on Wall Street, it didn't start there, but, undeterred, the Democrats will always bank on this observation from George Bernard Shaw: "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

And, of course, if the current plan to restore economic confidence does not succeed, you know the Demos have "Plan B." Don't ask...

WHAT ROLE HAVE POLITICIANS PLAYED?

One staple of the Democrats' political playbook is the use of scare tactics to rally constituencies. Indeed, Obama and other Demos have been dishing out a steady stream of dire economic rhetoric in order to keep their constituents in line.  Undoubtedly, all that economic hyperbole has influenced public perception of our economy and confidence in our economy. High on the list of issues President Bush discussed with candidates McCain and Obama was a request that they (read: "Obama") cease and desist using the economic problems as political fodder.

It is our hope that the candidates will, indeed, arrive for debate in Oxford, Mississippi, this evening and begin the debate with a unified statement on economic recovery; then Sen. McCain can proceed to eviscerate Obama on foreign policy.

Footnote: There are significant, albeit unspoken, national security implications of a precipitous economic decline in the U.S. Where the our economy goes, the world economy follows, and their will be significant national security consequences. For example, if China's economy contracts more rapidly than at present, keeping pace with U.S. economic decline, the consequences will likely be some significant internal and external "mischief" scripted by the Communist Party. As for India and Pakistan...you get the picture.

BAILOUT BASICS – Part 2 (October 13, 2008)

By Mark Alexander

"The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)" Patriot Post Vol. 08 No. 39 Digest

PERCEPTION V. REALITY

Essentially, perception defines value, and the shared confidence in our perception of the value of one major sector of our economy, the housing market, has eroded dramatically.

To understand the notion of perceived value, consider all that paper we call currency. If I walk into a store and pull out one of these pieces of paper with Ben Franklin's picture handsomely printed upon it, the store proprietor will accept that paper in trade for some of his products or services because he believes it to have intrinsic value (which it once did, when it was backed by hard assets---gold and silver). But make no mistake: The value of that piece of paper is nothing more than it is perceived to be. Thus, if the proprietor's confidence in that perception becomes diminished, he may begin to think such a piece of paper is worth only half its face value, or perhaps nothing at all.

And if my paper is perceived to have no value, I will not be able to do commerce in this or any other store.

For two decades, our confidence in the perceived value of pieces of paper called mortgages has been growing rapidly, and because the prevailing perception has been that a house will be worth more tomorrow than it is today, financial institutions have aggressively enabled buyers to assume mortgages to purchase houses. (Actually, mortgages are now traded electronically as binary data---value that!)

However, in recent years, confidence in the perceived value of real estate has outpaced reality, as mortgage defaults have trended upward. That realization has resulted in what now has become a precipitous erosion of confidence in the value of real estate, and consequently, housing market values have collapsed in many areas of the country where they were unduly inflated.

While perception can be shaped and molded, reality is finite. The reality, in this case, is that a house and its outstanding mortgage are worth not a nickel more than a buyer is willing to and capable of paying for it.

Thus, the devaluation of mortgages has had an enormous financial impact on institutions that trade in "packaged mortgages," and consequently, on other institutions that trade with them, and, well you get the picture. The dominos have begun to fall.

Moreover, in an effort to keep their domino standing, because of the potential that any new lending would result in additional foreclosure exposure if the housing market continues to decline, banks have tightened lending in order to preserve the capital necessary to cover the cost of a growing number of foreclosures. This constriction of the money supply extends far beyond the housing markets, as loans for business development and expansion are also drying up.

This combination of events creates the perfect economic storm, and it has dire consequences for all Americans.

CONSEQUENCES OF CASCADING CONFIDENCE

Confidence in the perceived value of financial instruments, which are the foundation of our economy, is calculated minute by minute by indices such as Dow Jones, Standard and Poor's, and other measures of financial markets. These measurements amount to investor confidence indices, polls of investor perception about the strength and stability of the economy. The stability and direction of these indices are a good indication of investor confidence.

If the indices indicate significant instability of investor confidence, that instability can cause the financial markets to collapse in a single day. (See: "Great Depression.")

Here, it's important to note that the vast majority of Americans are among the "investor class." This isn't just about "the rich." Whether you trade millions of dollars in securities daily or like cream in your coffee, you are a shareholder in our economy.

Thus, the plan proposed by President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson---waiting for majorities in Congress to determine the details---is an effort to stabilize investor confidence by authorizing up to $700 billion in guarantees for institutions holding mortgages. In effect, this will relieve lenders of liability for mortgages considered to be at risk of default---about five percent of all mortgages.

It is hoped that Republicans can succeed in crafting legislation that is more workout than bailout, the former requiring much more market accountability, as proposed by Sen. McCain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

President Bush addressed the nation recently with a concise explanation of the current crisis:

"This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We've seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money. We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis... So I've proposed that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending. This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry---it is aimed at preserving America's overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America's financial system is back on track."

BAILOUT BASICS – Part 1 (October 6, 2008)

                                                                 By Mark Alexander

"The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)"  Patriot Post Vol. 08 No. 39 Digest

"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." ---John McCain arguing for passage of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190) which he co-sponsored in 2005.

While Sen. McCain is being pilloried by his opponent, Barack Hussein Obama, for asserting (correctly) last week that the fundamentals of most U.S. economic sectors are sound, clearly, Sen. McCain has understood for years that irresponsible lending practices for U.S. housing posed "enormous risk... to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

While Obama was out politicking this week, ostensibly itching for a debate that he'd been avoiding all summer, McCain suspended his campaign to work with Republicans in Congress, outlining conditions for an agreement that would both protect the American taxpayer and thwart a meltdown of the U.S. economy. So, "Country First" is not just a campaign slogan...

The enormous risk that Sen. McCain warned of in 2005 has now become a financial crisis of staggering proportions. That crisis can trace its roots to Bill Clinton's signature on legislation making it easier for minority constituents with bad credit to obtain mortgages. In 1995, he had his Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, rewrite the lending rules for the Community Reinvestment Act, opening the flood gates of mortgage lending to unqualified borrowers.

This legislation, in effect, applied affirmative action to the lending industry, which is to say that the current crisis is NOT a "free market failure" but the result of socially engineered financial policy by the central government. The financial markets welcomed their new customers with open arms, fueling a real estate boom across the board.

These so-called "subprime mortgages," which were offered at variable interest rates, were widely perceived as good investments. Investors used the high-risk instruments to secure assets in other markets fueling profits for investment banks and mortgage lenders. The subprime market thus expanded rapidly and the mortgage instruments were used by other firms as collateral for investments in stocks, commodities and the like.

Unfortunately, no one questioned the pell-mell regulatory system of oversight for these transactions until large cracks appeared in our economy's foundation, the first being the collapse of Countrywide, the nation's largest subprime lender. Then banks and mortgage lenders large and small began downsizing, dumping assets and closing their doors. Bear Stearns filed for bankruptcy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, holders of trillions of dollars in mortgages, were bailed out with 200 billion taxpayer dollars. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, and insurance giant AIG was given an $85-billion taxpayer prop to keep it solvent.

This morning, as Congress is debating whether to implement the Democrat-backed "bailout plan" or the Republican-backed "workout plan," Washington Mutual Inc. has been seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) after collapsing under the weight of reams of bad mortgages. WaMu, listing

$307 billion in assets, becomes the largest bank failure in U.S. history. The FDIC sold WaMu's assets for $1.9 billion to JPMorgan Chase & Co., which bought Bear Stearns Cos. earlier this year.

(Congressional Republicans might also consider repeal of Sarbox, the Sarbanes-Oxley Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002, which has maintained a choke hold on financial institutions and is high on the list of proximate causes for the failure of Countrywide and Bear Stearns.)

The serious economic calamity confronting our nation, and the world, is being labeled a "credit crisis." But we are on the verge of a crisis of cascading confidence in the U.S. economy, which, in the absence of aggressive intervention, could, no, will result in a dramatic recession affecting every sector of the U.S. and, eventually, world economy.

The catastrophe looming just over the horizon is indeed that big, and we must all hope that the solution is big enough to interrupt the domino effect already underway.

The question that must be asked, however, is whether the people's confidence in their government is sufficient to thwart this cascading effect. Far more often than not, in the inimitable words of Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." Of course, the only institution big enough to address a problem of this magnitude is the government.

Bar Stool Economics (October 6, 2008)

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

And remember Klee’s Law: “Defeat Apathy - or don’t!”

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

How Foreign Policy Affects Gas Prices (Posted August 25, 2008)

Texas Straight Talk by Rep. Ron Paul

We've heard how the value of the dollar affects gas prices – and indeed the price of everything.  I was pleased that my request for a hearing on such was granted by the Financial Services committee and we were able to hear some very informative testimony.  Certainly domestic policies, regarding off-shore oil drilling bans, ethanol mandates, refining capacity, and CAFE standards are interventionist and harmful enough in the energy market.

But how does foreign policy affect gas prices?  One important factor is that oil on the world market has been priced in dollars exclusively since 1973.  Only two leaders have gone against this arrangement - Saddam Hussein in 2000 and more recently Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the recently opened Iranian Oil Bourse which trades in non-dollar currencies.  But since oil is otherwise exclusively traded in dollars, this means that oil producers have vast amounts of assets held in dollars.  Especially since the War on Terror and the PATRIOT Act, many oil-producing nations and banks are concerned the US government may freeze assets based on flimsy pretexts.  This fear contributes to dollar weakness, and therefore also high oil prices.

Recently I and other members of Congress spoke out against H Con Res 362 and exposed this seemingly innocuous bill for what it really is – a call for a blockade and a build up to war with Iran.  Thankfully it has not come to the floor for a vote as I had fully expected it would.  But to even propose legislation like this, and get an alarming 261 cosponsors, makes the oil markets jittery and encourages more capital flight from the dollar.  We only isolate ourselves on the world stage with actions and attitudes like this.  After all, how can it be wise for the rest of the world to bank on America, when we tend to freeze assets and blockade entire countries for no good reason?

Another major factor is our intervention in international military conflicts.  These conflicts are often much more complicated, and have more to do with oil than our own leaders are willing to acknowledge.  Too often the side we support points our weapons right back at us down the road.  The best policy is always free trade with all and entangling alliances with none, but instead we isolate ourselves by picking sides and making enemies out of our friends or potential friends.  In the recent conflict with Russia and Georgia, it appears that once again the administration is going to pick sides and send taxpayer money, when we are in a deep recession here at home.  There is no good reason for us to put a dog in every fight around the world.

The contributing factors in the price of oil are complicated and legion.  The fact is, it is an immensely valuable resource, and, as our demand for this resource is great, our relationships with world leaders who control it should be handled with reason and intelligence.  However, our interventionist mindset when it comes to foreign policy never ceases to get us into sticky situations, for which we pay a premium at the gas pump.

What's in a Bill Name? (Posted August 18, 2008)

Texas Straight Talk by Rep. Ron Paul

Recently Congress passed the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act., also known as the Housing Bill.  Its passage was lauded by many who are legitimately concerned about foreclosures and the housing market in our country's economy.  I was asked how I could vote against a bill to help American homeowners, but I found this bill to have more to do with helping big banks than helping average Americans.

The answer is that there is more to any bill than its name or the headlines surrounding it.  If one only paid attention to bill titles, one could happily vote for almost any bill put to a vote on the floor.  Titles do not tell the complete story of a bill's provisions, and many titles are downright deceptive and come close to emotional blackmail of legislators.  But we cannot afford to be fooled by fancy titles.  The housing bill could perhaps be more aptly named The Big Banking Bailout at Taxpayer Expense Act as large sections of it were written by big banking lobbyists according to Evans and Novak reporter Tim Carney's Capitol Hill sources.  At least that title would be honest.

Also, many of these magnanimous sounding foreign aid bills and so-called human rights resolutions have counterproductive and hypocritical language tucked into the fine print. The recent bill on China was a good example.  This resolution calls on China to hold meetings with the Dalai Lama without preconditions, when that is something our own government will not do with Iran.  How our government has the authority to tell China what to do it beyond me, especially when we demand something so hypocritical.  On foreign aid bills and legislation that on the surface seems very charitable, upon closer examination we find strings attached and a lot of manipulation of the marketplace.  Many times, these bills purport to help the destitute, but actually help multinational corporations or prop up dictators that might otherwise be deposed by their people.

The other point to take into consideration on legislation and House resolutions is that intentions are not enough.  It is not enough to want to solve a problem with legislation, and name a bill to that effect.  The crafters of the legislation need to demonstrate a clear and honest understanding of the problem, in order to put forward a realistic strategy to solving it.  Too many times, I just don't see that.  Instead I see more taxes, more restrictions, more violations of the Constitution, and more unintended consequences.

One shouldn't judge legislation based on titles, good intentions, or what someone says the bill will do.  Imagine if all the legislation in the history of this country actually did what the title of the bills proclaimed they would do.  How very different this country would be!  There would be no poverty, no drugs, no crime.  In fact if it was that easy, Congress by now would have probably repealed the law of gravity, and supply and demand as well, and replaced them with unlimited wealth and given all Americans the power of flight.  What a fanciful world our legislators live in at times!

Though I am at times accused of being mean-spirited regarding the many bills I vote against, I don't so much think of my vote as against the legislation, as much as FOR the Constitution, according to my duties as a Congressman.

Janet Jackson Revisited (Posted August 11, 2004)

On July 21, 2008 a federal appeals court threw out the $550,00 fine imposed by the FCC against CBS for Janet Jackson's "fleeting image of nudity" on national television during the 2004 Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show broadcast, an incident that may best be remembered more for its "wardrobe malfunction" defense.

THE BACKGROUND FACTS:

On February 1, 2004, CBS presented a live broadcast of

the National Football League’s Super Bowl XXXVIII, which included a halftime show produced by MTV Networks. Nearly

90 million viewers watched the Halftime Show, which began at

8:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time and lasted about fifteen minutes.

The Halftime Show featured a variety of musical performances by contemporary recording artists, with Janet Jackson as the announced headlining act and Justin Timberlake as a “surprise guest” for the final minutes of the show. Timberlake was unveiled on stage near the conclusion of the Halftime Show. He and Jackson performed his popular song

“Rock Your Body” as the show’s finale.

Their performance, which the FCC contends involved sexually suggestive choreography, portrayed Timberlake seeking to dance with Jackson, and Jackson alternating between accepting and rejecting his advances. The performance ended with Timberlake singing, “gonna have you naked by the end of this song,” and simultaneously tearing away part of Jackson’s bustier.

The record is unclear on the actual number of complaints received from unorganized, individual viewers. In its brief, the

FCC asserts it received “‘an unprecedented number’ of complaints about the nudity broadcast during the halftime show.” CBS disputes the calculation and significance of the viewer complaints.                         

CBS implemented a five-second audio delay to guard against the possibility of indecent language being transmitted on air, but it did not employ similar precautionary technology for video images. As a result, Jackson’s bare right breast was exposed on camera for nine-sixteenths of one second.

Jackson’s exposed breast caused a sensation and resulted in a large number of viewer complaints to the Federal Communications Commission.

In response, the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau issued a letter of inquiry asking CBS to provide more information about the broadcast along with a video copy of the entire Super Bowl program. CBS supplied the requested materials, including a script of the Halftime Show, and issued a public statement of apology for the incident. CBS stated Jackson and Timberlake’s wardrobe stunt was unscripted had no advance notice of any plan by the performers to deviate from the script.

On September 22, 2004, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability finding CBS had apparently violated federal law and FCC rules restricting the broadcast of indecent material. After its review, the Commission determined CBS was apparently liable for a forfeiture penalty of $550,000. CBS opposed the Notice.

On November 5, 2004 the Commission issued a forfeiture order over CBS’s opposition on March 15, 2006, imposing a forfeiture penalty of $550,000. Affirming its preliminary findings, the Commission concluded the Halftime Show broadcast was indecent because it depicted a sexual organ and violated “contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.”

In making this determination, the FCC relied on a contextual analysis to find the broadcast of Jackson’s exposed breast was: (1) graphic and explicit, (2) shocking and pandering, and (3) fleeting. It further concluded that the brevity of the image was outweighed by the other two factors.

THE COURT'S DECISION:

The extensive history reviewed by the Court demonstrated a consistent and entrenched policy of excluding fleeting broadcast material from the scope of actionable indecency. In sum, the balance of the evidence weighed heavily against the FCC’s contention that its restrained enforcement policy for fleeting material extended only to fleeting words and not to fleeting images

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals further found that Jackson and Timberlake were independent contractors, who are outside the scope of respondeat superior, rather than employees as the FCC found.

The First Amendment precludes the FCC from sanctioning CBS for the indecent expressive conduct of its independent contractors without offering proof of scienter as an element of liability. Further, it is unclear whether the FCC correctly applied a “willfulness” standard to find CBS liable for failing to prevent the Halftime Show’s indecency.

Do you agree with the Court’s decision? Let’s hear from you in “Sound Off!”

The Dangers of Neo-Conservative Economic Policies (Posted August 4, 2008)

By Rep. Ron Paul, 14th District

The dangers inherent in the foreign policy advocated by the neo-conservatives are well known.  While many Americans have become increasingly aware of those dangers, far less attention has been focused on the dangers of neo-conservative economic policies.  This issue is of critical importance right now, because many are mistakenly pointing their fingers at the free market as the culprit behind our current economic plight.

There are only a few in elected office who have any real loyalty to free markets and limited government.  The agenda of neo-conservatives in the economy calls for a very active central government.  Indeed, while there are some neo-conservatives who continue to use the rhetoric of limited government, and who oppose increases in the federal income tax as a way to maintain the political benefits that apply to those who talk about free markets, it is now the neo-conservatives who promote fiat monetary policies even more than those on the liberal left.

While I have been a strong proponent of cutting taxes on all Americans, and therefore supported the tax reductions offered by President Bush, the neo-cons argue that tax rate reduction alone is the key to “getting the government out of the way” of economic growth.  Moreover, they invariably argue for tax reductions targeted toward the wealthy, and toward multinational corporations.

Over the years, I have offered several tax plans designed to assist hard working middle-class Americans to pay for their needs, whether these needs be health-care related, educational or to pay the costs of fuel.  A few years back when I introduced one such bill, a prominent Republican approached me on the House Floor and asked, half in anger and half in amazement “why did you do that?”  Shortly after that, the committee chairman at the time, also a Republican, sent out a release strongly attacking my tax cut bill.

So, while the liberal economic agenda includes more taxes and spending, the neo-con economic program simply looks to target some tax cuts to preferred groups, but ignore the economic big picture.  The neo-con economic agenda is to “borrow and spend” and it is that agenda, even more than the tax and spend ways of many liberals, that has cast us in economic peril at this time.

Simply, on spending, the neo-cons and the liberals share views, just as they share similar views on foreign policy.  While each side tries to claim the mantle of change, reality is that more of the same is not change.

The fiat monetary policy we now follow is the most significant factor contributing to our economic peril, and it is central to the neo-con agenda.  As we hear new calls to empower the Federal Reserve Board, we should be aware that underlying all neo-conservative policies is the idea of monetary inflation.  Inflation is the technique used to pay for the regulatory-state and the costs of policing the world.

The Lawsuit Waiting to Happen, Happened (Posted July 14, 2008)

Last year I cautioned against the Llano County Commissioners Court purchasing taser weapons for use by elected officials (See, “Tasers in Llano? Shocking!” 10/15/2007). As you may recall, Cindy Lent, County Auditor, recommended the Commissioners Court issued a policy that would allow certain elected officials to be issued tasers at county expense. Lent referred to the tasers as “non-lethal stun guns” but not even the company that manufacturers them believes that.

Taser International, the largest stun gun maker in the United States was sued on behalf of a California man who died after police shot him multiple times with the weapon. Last month a San Jose jury rendered a $6.2 million verdict against Taser Incorporated, the first loss for Taser in a product liability claim. In my previous article I argued that by adopting such a policy, Llano County was creating a lawsuit waiting to happen. Well, it finally did to the company that manufactures the product.

Robert Heston, 40, died on Feb. 20, 2005, after his father had called Salinas police because his son was “acting strangely,'' and seemed to be on drugs, according to the lawsuit complaint. Salinas police shot Heston multiple times with the stun-gun, continuing to discharge their Tasers into him until he stopped moving, the lawsuit claims.

Heston subsequently went into cardiac arrest and died.

His parents sued Taser, alleging failure to warn of the dangers of the weapon, and Salinas police officers, claiming excessive force. The jury exonerated the police because allegedly the police didn't know repeated exposures could kill someone thus clearing them of any liability. In light of this lawsuit and jury findings, however, police officers using Tazers in the future may not be able to hide behind this defense. There is now legal precedent that repeated Taser exposures can kill. 

The jury found that Taser had failed to warn police in Salinas, California, that prolonged exposure to electric shock from the device could cause a risk of cardiac arrest. The jury awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $5.2 million in punitive damages to the estate of Robert Heston, 40, and his parents i.e. $5 million in punitive damages to Heston's parents and $200,000 in punitive damages to his estate.

The compensatory damage verdict was expected to be reduced by the jury's finding that Heston was 85 percent responsible for his death. That affects the compensatory damages, but not the punitive damages, however.

Taser previously won two trials, one over claims by a police officer injured in a training accident and the other involving a death in custody. Taser has settled at least 10 cases involving injuries to police officers during training. By all reports, Taser is likely to appeal the verdict.

It was unsuccessfully argued at trial that use of the Taser on Heston didn't cause his death in that Heston fit ``the well established symptom pattern for methamphetamine intoxication and associated excited delirium,'' a condition linked to sudden death in custody. Apparently, the jury didn’t buy that argument.

The lawsuit is Heston v. City of Salinas, C 05-03658 JW, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

Llano County was forewarned of the dangers of Taser use yet chooses to ignore them by adopting a misguided policy allowing for their purchase and use. One of these days elected officials in Llano County will no longer be able to hide behind a cloak of government immunity while endangering the lives and rights of its citizens. Unfortunately, the taxpayers will end up paying for their indiscretions.

And remember Klee’s Law: “It would be hard to think of a more ridiculous way to make decisions than to transfer those decisions to third parties who pay no price for being wrong.” (Thomas Sowell)

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

Index of National News publications available on this page

To read a particular article, simply click on the title below