Thoughts Aloud

Archive for December, 2008

This issue just won’t let go of me. I just went to attorney Donofrio’s “Natural Born Citizen” blog, to see what the SCOTUS had done regarding Cort Wrotnowski’s case today:

[UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 : Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false. A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision. She indicated there will be no decision until Monday. The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]

Interesting… most lawyers I have read were predicting the SCOTUS would perfunctorily bat it away. Even more interesting, was the post to which this was an update. Donofrio seems to have had enough of the MSM et al demonizing him as some hateful nutcase, and dismissing his Constitutional issue as frivolous. He unloaded, and were I a reporter or lawyer guilty of such, I would be compelled to hang my head in shame upon reading “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”: DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA:

PREAMBLE

This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our “Fourth Estate” press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from “The One Corporation – your source for everything…” (cue eery theme tune). They don’t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There’s a huge difference.

For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots – three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama [born] John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they – because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play.

A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution – that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather “be” the law instead of following it.

What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man – it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn’t), but rather that the law shouldn’t be discussed at all.

He then clearly, convincingly, and, for a lawyer, succinctly lays out the legal justification for his assertion that Obama is not a “Natural Born” citizen. Please read it. One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to understand it, and frankly, any lawyer who could read it and continue to dismiss the issue as frivolous, is a rank partisan and no friend of our Constitution. Similarly, any reporter who could read it and dismiss the author as a hateful nutcase, is a rank partisan and no friend of the novel concept of unbiased reporting of the truth. Both are shameful and ought to feel ashamed… but the arrogant fools won’t. ◄Dave►

PJ O’Rourke’s plea, “Print paupers could use bailout” is great for a morning laugh while our very nature as a capitalist society is disintegrating before our unbelieving eyes:

Remember, America, you can’t wrap a fish in satellite radio or line the bottom of your birdcage with MSNBC (however appropriate that would be). It’s expensive to swat flies with a podcasting iPod. Newsboys tossing flat-screen monitors on to your porch will damage the wicker furniture. And a dog that’s trained to piddle on your high-speed internet connection can cause a dangerous electrical short-circuit and burn down your house.

Enjoy… if you still can laugh. ◄Dave►

GOP Senator Warn of Riots if Automakers Are Bailed Out

In a remarkably candid interview, Sen. DeMint, R-SC makes some very good points:

“We’re going to have riots. There are already people rioting because they’re losing their jobs when everybody else is being bailed out. The fairness of it becomes more and more evident as we go along. The auto companies may be hurting,” he said, but “there are very few companies that aren’t hurting and they’re going to hurt. We don’t have enough money to bail everyone out.”

“There is no question this will result in inflation,” DeMint said. “The amount of money we’ve borrowed, the amount of money we’ve printed has put us in a more dangerous situation than we’ve ever been in as a country. We may not see the inflation as long as the economy is slow. But, I’ve talked to some economic experts and once the economy starts picking up with so much money in the money supply and so much debt, we’re likely to see very high interest rates and very high inflation rates.”

“If you look at where we’re going, we’re not on a sustainable course as a country,” DeMint said. “Frankly, GM is in a better financial situation than we are as a country. The only difference is we can print money. But as other countries around the world lose confidence in the value of a dollar – that’s going to come home very shortly.”

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s just go ahead and get a Chapter 11 Judge to reorganize the Federal government, shall we? ◄Dave►

I have enjoyed participating on a new blog the last few days, which is worth sharing. It is called Secular Right, and the level of discourse there is outstanding. All comments are moderated, and they regularly bat away even articulate proponents of the Piously Correct Christian Right, when they try to turn interesting secular political discussions into religious arguments. Creationists comments are perfunctorily rejected by the moderators. Thus, they earn their subtitle, “Reality & Reason.” I have added the site to my blogroll, which I intend to keep short and relevant to my own activities.

A new post there this morning sparked my interest; because of a debate I have been having with Orrin at First Principles, over the definition of “conservative.” It included a link to a document called The Sharon Statement, which was meant to be a set of conservative principles hammered out by young conservatives in 1960 at Bill Buckley’s estate. It contains none of the “social issues” considered so important by the the Religious Right today, and even the inclusion of the phrase “God-given free will” barely passed (44-40). I made the following reply to the thread:

I had not seen the Sharon Statement before. Although I am personally godless, and therefore consider it superfluous, the inclusion of “God-given” does not offend me; anymore than the religious flourishes in our founding documents do. If the one word “Communism” could be replaced with “Marxism,” to subsume all of its derivatives, I would sign it today.

Were it universally agreed to be definitional of a “conservative,” I would happily stop resisting the label, and insisting that I am instead a small (L) libertarian. This is precisely what I mean when I say the litmus tests of the Politically or Piously Correct moralists have nothing to do with good government, and those of us who value individual Liberty need to hijack one of the Parties to represent our worldview.

I didn’t leave the Democrat Party in the late ’60s; they left me. I didn’t leave the Republican Party in the late ’80s; they left me. I never joined the Libertarian Party; because they are hopeless purists arguing over minutia, and the game is rigged against third parties. Color me homeless. ◄Dave►

I reckon a lot of small (L) libertarians wish the conservative movement as defined by these folks had survived. Now, I need to make sure Orrin sees this. The whole purpose of his blog is to try to come up with a unifying principle for conservatism. ◄Dave►

Well, this tears it. It just occurred to me that I now despise Barack Hussein Obama with every fiber of my being. Until this moment, I have only opposed him because he is a Marxist, and perhaps for his arrogance and deceit; but those traits are not uncommon among politicians. No, his sins against our country are infinitely worse. We might have survived his Marxist proclivities and Newer New Deal programs; but his worse sin against our republic’s very fabric has already been committed, and I damn him and his enablers for perpetrating it.

As commenter “acsnyc” pointed out on my post yesterday, the SCOTUS is not done with the issue of Obama’s eligibility. This morning’s exploration leads me to conclude: not by a long shot, and they won’t be anytime soon, if ever. Obama and his associates have knowingly, with malice and aforethought, perpetrated a fraud on us all; and put the SCOTUS between a rock and a hard place. I would not wish to be in their shoes.

Monday next, Obama is set to be elected to the office of POTUS as a usurper who is Constitutionally ineligible to hold that office. The SCOTUS now knows this, and are the only ones who can prevent it. Yet, they must also know the literally riotous effect, all across the land, such a ruling would have. Put yourself in their shoes. It would be mighty tempting, regardless of personal politics, to assuage one’s guilt over failing to live up to one’s oath to protect and defend the Constitution; by rationalizing that the people have chosen, and the Natural Born clause is perhaps an antiquated requirement anyway.

Simply refusing, without comment, to hear the new Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz case, would be the pragmatic approach and I predict they will take it. The specter of the considerable carnage during the razing of the ghettos, which undoubtedly would ensue otherwise, is just unthinkable. Yet, it would be precisely the wrong thing to do; for, as I have been saying for some time, this issue is not going away.

If Obama takes office, he will be a usurper; way too many legal denizens know this, and there will be a flood of lawsuits filed over every supposed “official” act he executes under the color of law. Sooner or later, like it or not, they are going to have to rule on his eligibility for the office; and when they do, anything less than at least a 7-2 affirmation will probably not be dispositive.

This morning, I stumbled across the personal blog of Leo Donofrio, Esq. On it is a press release from last night:

PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm

Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 – whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

Tomorrow, Dec. 9 – Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray – who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark - was appointed by Chester Arthur.

The Wong Kim Ark case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS Justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.

The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Ark seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.

It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.

Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.

It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Ark.

It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.

All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.

Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Cort Wrotnowski

In an earlier post yesterday discussing the disposition of his NJ case, he also made the point:

[UPDATE 12:23 PM The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It's important for history to record that.]

For some fascinating reading, I also recommend his expose on President Chester Arthur’s exploits to conceal his own birth to a British citizen father.

Then,only last Friday he published an essay covering the eligibility of all of the Presidents who had parents born abroad. He was onto Arther’s lies, but did not yet have the documentary proof that his father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth, as he now does. One poignant passage:

CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE

And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Does it ever! I now suspect Berg, et al, of deliberately obfuscating the real issue with his elaborate “Born in Kenya” lawsuit, since it doesn’t matter where he was born as a British citizen. Had any court asked for it, he probably would have readily complied, embarrassing everyone. This, and all the other such red herrings, had the effect of turning off the media and public at large to the whole subject; dismissing it as Right-wing nut-case tomfoolery (even though Berg was a Democrat) that everyone is fed up hearing about.

Since Obama freely admits to dual nationally at birth, the real issue is the definition of “Natural Born,” and Donofrio, Wrotnowski, Judah Benjamin et al have that question exactly right. Therefore, he is ineligible for the office and will be a usurper if he takes it. This is the conundrum Obama and crew has put the SCOTUS and all Americans who value both our Constitution and civil order into. Curse them; and the Obamusurper will never be my lawful President, no matter what. Screw the arrogant jerk; her deserves no respect whatever. ◄Dave►

I have not mentioned this lately, so I have not shared that the issue of where Obama was born is likely to be a red herring. In all that I have read on the issue, which is a lot, the most persuasive argument is made by one Judah Benjamin. He traces English law all the way back to the Middle Ages to show what the Founders meant by the “natural born” clause for POTUS eligibility.

I think he makes an ironclad case that someone born of an alien father and American mother could never be a natural born citizen. It has little to do with your place of birth, but rather the condition of it, as regards the subject of allegiance. A child born a dual citizen has divided allegiance, and by definition is not “natural born.” By the way, this would also make Bill Richardson ineligible.

Predictably, today the SCOTUS took a pass on granting certiorari to the Donofrio case challenging Obama’s eligibility. Undoubtedly, they decided that the specter of the rioting in the ghettos that would follow a correct ruling, was a greater evil than abandoning the Constitution as the bedrock of our rule of law. So, they ducked.

This NJ case did not question his birth certificate. It simply challenged his “natural born” status, on the grounds that he was born a dual citizen, which his campaign freely admits. This was not a question of “fact,” but very much a question of “law,” which the Supremes should have ruled on. Thus, effective immediately, the “natural born” clause is rendered meaningless, and the California Governator might as well gear up for a run for POTUS. The courts, now all the way to the top, have said that no one has standing to challenge it and there is therefore nothing to stop him.

If simple intimidation and popular support is now all it takes to amend our Constitution, we might as well not have one; and just acknowledge the reality that we live in a mobocracy. This political expedience may not work out so well for minorities in the end, but sometimes one has to be careful what one wishes for. ◄Dave►

I just received an e-mail from a friend who doesn’t often forward advocacy type e-mails, so I read it with interest. Personally, I don’t like the government bailing out anyone or any entity for any reason. However, pragmatically, they are already on that foolish path and as I understand it they are struggling for the best way to spend the $700B that they have already approved for the purpose.

The following is the most innovative idea I have seen, and it makes a lot of sense. It is from a local accountant that I have actually met at our Pismo Derelicts gathering, named Ken Fontes. Rumor has it that he has actually gotten some attention in Washington DC and may be interviewed by Hannity about it next week:

Family, Friends and Fellow American Taxpayers,

After weeks of listening to how our elected representatives plan to spend OUR 700+ Billion Dollars, I felt it was time for someone to come up with a solution that would help the majority of homeowners in this country, instead of just a select few. As each proposal was revealed, it became more and more apparent that only those homeowners that were either on the brink of financial collapse, or those that had plenty of equity in their homes, were going to benefit from this “bailout” money.

The company that I work for has a warehouse full of people, and I have a whole lot of family, friends and acquaintances that make their payments every month and never ask for a thing. When the interest rates started to come down last week, I asked many of them if they were going to refinance. They all said “No, because they owed more on their homes than their homes were worth”, and that no financial institution would touch their request, even with the bailout money. These hard working Americans all plan to continue making their payments, but due to falling home equities, they no longer meet the qualifications necessary to refinance their homes.

When I thought about the Great Depression and the TVA & WPA programs that were instituted in the 1930′s, I remembered hearing how people wanted “a hand-up, not a handout”. I believe that mainstream Americans are still like that, and a hand-up is exactly what the Jump Start America, (“JSA”) plan provides. Our Nation simply can not wait for the “experts” to try and figure out how to save our fragile economy.

Jump Start America:

1. Will put discretionary income immediately into the pockets of working people who can get this economy rolling.
2. Will recapitalize the banks so they can start lending again and continue funding the growth of Small Business America.
3. Will increase State and Federal income tax revenues WITHOUT increasing current tax schedules.

Take a look at the attached Jump Start America plan and if you believe “JSA” will work for our country, please pass it on to everyone you know. Tell a neighbor, e-mail your family and friends, call the newspaper, contact your congressman and let’s all do what ever it takes to be heard. Who knows, the home you save may be your own!

Thank you for your help,
“Ken the Accountant”
December 5, 2008

Jump Start America
“JSA”

On January 1, 2009 all financial institutions currently holding first trust deed mortgages would send their borrowers a letter offering to change the terms of their loan, at no cost, to a 3%, 30 year, non transferable fixed loan. Unless the borrower chooses by return letter not to accept the offer, on February 1, 2009 each loan would be re-amortized with a new payment schedule based on the 3% fixed rate. The institution, (using a pre-established formula that takes into consideration the type of loan being replaced), would evaluate the loss in revenue caused by the restructure and would then apply for a lump sum reimbursement from the 700+ billion dollar bailout fund. The offer would be available to every person or corporation with a 1st trust deed on a residential property, anywhere in the USA, regardless of their current property value, financial responsibility, or payment status.

1. For Americans. The “JSA” plan would provide immediate relief to all Americans that have a 1st Trust deed loan. For millions of hard working people “JSA” would replace high interest rate fixed loans, as well as low interest rate ARMs and interest only loans that are impending financial disaster for this country. The plan is not selective and would not only help those who are on the brink of losing their homes, but would also help those Americans who have faithfully worked hard and made their payments, but are struggling in these tough economic times. The lowering of payments to a large majority of Americans would “Jump Start” the economy immediately, with the lower payments not only saving many homes from foreclosure, but also putting discretionary income back into the pockets of people who would be purchasing goods and services in communities all across our country.
2. For Financial Institutions. The “JSA” would immediately convert many “High Risk” and problem loans into solid, profitable, low risk loans. All past due principle and interest would be re-amortized into the new 3% fixed rate loans and all 1st trust deed loans would be current as of February 1st. Because of this, foreclosures on 1st trust deeds would cease immediately. The funds passed on to the banks for the interest shortfall would recapitalize these financial institutions who would in turn, “Jump Start” the economy by having funds available to borrowers for new home purchases, construction and consumer goods, as well as to businesses for much needed operating & capital funds.
3. For The Government. The “JSA” would increase tax revenue without increasing taxes. With less interest being paid across America, the schedule A interest deduction would be reduced dramatically, therefore increasing income tax revenue for the 2009 tax year. This increase in tax revenue for the Federal and State government, without increasing current tax rate schedules is fair and equitable for all Americans. With the “JSA”, only those who benefit from the plan pay more income taxes, with those taxes being far less than the interest break benefit that they received from their new “JSA” fixed rate mortgage. The “JSA” would “Jump Start” the new administration with an immediate increase in income tax revenue for the programs promoted during the recent election.

Thoughts from Working Americans

1. 1. Felipe P., Santa Maria, California. 37, married with 3 children. Felipe is a shipping supervisor with his wife working in banking. Current mortgage is at $400,000 on home purchased for $450,000. Home is currently valued at $290,000 with 3 year interest only loan, now due to be converted to fully amortized loan. If converted before “JSA”, mortgage payment will be at least $2,600 per month. Under the “JSA” plan monthly payment would be $1,675 per month. Felipe says, “I have been trying to convert my loan to an affordable fixed rate loan for the past year and a half. No lender will even consider my request because of the lack of equity in my home. If my payment goes to $2,600 per month, I will not be able to make the payment, and will likely have to give up my house and ruin my credit. This also means moving my family out of the area that we love. The “JSA” plan will allow me to keep my house and my credit.”
2. Penni C., Citrus Heights, California. 50, married, with 2 children. Both she and her husband are employed as x-ray technicians. 1st mortgage of $150,000 on home valued at $300,000. Loan is a 6.25% fixed loan with a payment of $925 per month. The “JSA” plan would reduce payment to $625 per month. Penni says, “To a lot of folks $300 per month doesn’t sound like a lot of money. But my husband and I have just finished putting one daughter through college and have another still attending. We have college debt, medical bills from some recent cancer treatments, and an old car that needs replacing. The $300 a month would allow us to make a payment on a new car that we would otherwise not be able to afford.”
3. Ron P., Clovis, California. 40, married, no children. Ron is an independent real estate appraiser with his wife working as an office manager in a construction company. Mortgage of $240,000 on home purchased for $300,000. Home is currently valued at $200,000 with 30 year fixed loan at 6.50%. Mortgage payment is currently $1,575 per month and would reduce to $1,050 under the “JSA” program. Ron says, “With the R/E sales falling to an all time low, my appraisal business is down to a quarter of what I did last year. I have had to take on a second job in order to make ends meet. If the “JSA” is implemented, not only would the $525 per month savings help us get back on our feet, the capital infusion to the banks would likely get the real estate market back in gear, which would bring back new appraisals to my business.”
4. Rita Z., Nipomo, California. 30, married, no children. Rita is a sales manager with her husband working as an operations manager. Home was purchased for $365,000 with no money down at 7.25% fixed. Home is currently valued at $290,000 with a payment of $2,550 per month. New payment under JSA plan would be $1,575 per month. Payment would decrease by $975 per month. Rita says, “We have been watching the decline in interest rates and were initially hopeful of refinancing our home. But after a few calls we realized that without equity in our home, no one would even talk to us. We can, and will, continue to make the payment on our home, as long as both my husband and I remain employed. If the “JSA” plan were implemented, we would likely be able to start a family, which at this point is impossible to even dream about.”

“Ken the Accountant”

Ken has put some common sense thinking into this, something that seems in short supply in DC. I reckon it is worth getting behind the idea, since they are going to just give the money to banks anyway. Any discussion? ◄Dave►

Well, I didn’t know what it was either, until I read this post from Hugh Hewitt. After following a few links there, including the one to get the Twitter 101 beginner’s guide, which explains how useful it could be, I signed up for an account.

My Twitter URL is simply twitter.com/thoughtsaloud and now I need some associates to “follow” and “tweet” to. So, if you Twitter send me a tweet and I will add you to my list. I suppose I will tweet every time I add a post or comment here, and perhaps make quick comments on things I surf across that do not merit a post here.

If you do not currently Twitter, it is probably because you are a fossil like me. Lets give the kids a run for their money and join in their new paradigm for staying connected. Sign up and reply to one of my tweets and I will reply to yours. Good grief, this sounds silly; but I think there is perhaps some utility to it, if for no other reason than to expand our horizons and perhaps attract more commenters to our blogs. ◄Dave►

Here we go. “Milwaukee neighborhoods could print own money” :

Residents from the Milwaukee neighborhoods of Riverwest and East Side are scheduled to meet Wednesday to discuss printing their own money. The idea is that the local cash could be used at neighborhood stores and businesses, thus encouraging local spending. The result, supporters hope, would be a bustling local economy, even as the rest of the nation deals with a recession…

It’s not a new concept—experts estimate there are at least 2,000 local currencies all over the world—but it is a practice that tends to burgeon during economic downturns. During the Great Depression, scores of communities relied on their own currencies.

And it’s completely legal…

I sure hope this catches fire. ◄Dave►

I just watched the missile launched from Vandenberg A.F.B. I hope it hit the target, which was supposed to be a missile launched from Alaska. ◄Dave►

Here is a surprisingly fair straight up report by the Hearst newspaper chain on tomorrow’s consideration by SCOTUS of one of the many lawsuits percolating up their way over the Obama birthplace question. ◄Dave►

Many know that I have been advocating the purchase of gold, because of impending inflation for some time, and that I put all of my savings where my mouth is over two years ago. Now that rampant inflation is upon us, many are wondering why gold prices are not going up.

In a must read article for those interested in the subject of our economy, David Vaughn reveals that Citigroup in an internal client note is predicting that gold may punch through the $2000 per oz. range next year:

“Citigroup says gold could rise above $2,000 next year as world unravels. Gold is poised for a dramatic surge and could blast through $2,000 an ounce by the end of next year as central banks flood the world’s monetary system with liquidity, according to an internal client note from the US bank Citigroup.” “Citigroup said the blast-off was likely to occur within two years, and possibly as soon as 2009.” “Gold has tripled in value over the last seven years, vastly outperforming Wall Street…”

In a related article, there is an excellent analysis with some revealing charts, of what is happening to gold on the commodities market:

While we see signs of “big money” moving into gold through machinations occuring with respect to “deliveries” at COMEX, there are other ‘tell tale’ signs that demand for physical metal is in fact SOARING. This is reflected by the recent decoupling of the price of COMEX gold futures and real costs one must incur to obtain physical ounces in coin or bar form. The premiums being paid for physical ounces have decoupled to the point where leading gold web sites now routinely list current ebay pricing for gold bars and coins to achieve “accurate” real world pricing for physical metal.

I had heard that high premiums must be paid to obtain gold and silver in convenient coin form, but since I have not personally bought or sold any for a couple of years, I was not aware that coin prices are now quoted from e-bay prices, pretty much ignoring the traditional “spot” commodity prices. Investigating that here, I note that a one ounce gold coin is now worth almost $1000, even though the market price for gold is in the mid $700 range.

Finally, for an excellent explanation of what the Fed is up to, read “U.S. Fed Monetizing Debt by Printing Money.” As an example:

How does the Fed get its money? It doesn’t need to borrow it; it merely creates an entry into its balance sheet. All the Fed requires to “print” money is a keyboard connected to a computer. The difference between the Fed and the Treasury issuing money is that the Treasury needs to get permission from Congress before selling bonds. In this context, it shall be mentioned that physical cash (coins, bank notes) are entered as liabilities on the Fed’s balance sheets; they are rather unique liabilities, however, as you can never redeem your cash: if you went to a bank, the best you can hope for in return for your dollar bill is a piece of paper that states that the bank owes you one dollar. While it is possible for central banks to remove cash in circulation, they are not obliged to do so.

As I keep saying, buckle up and be prepared. Even at $1000 per oz. gold is incredibly cheap right now, is unlikely to get any cheaper, and may very well go through the roof as the wheels keep coming off our economy. ◄Dave►

Do not miss this poignant post at the E3Gazette! Beautifully said, Sir, and please tell your son that you will not be alone…

I spent a week at the Taj Hotel almost 40 years ago, and the live coverage of the recent events there was just sickening. Thank you for putting this perspective on them. I think the next time someone says, “Religion of Peace” in my presence they just may get smacked… Hard. ◄Dave►

The Washington DC Examiner has a telling little report entitled, “Reid: We won’t smell the tourist anymore.” Senator Reid at his best:

“My staff tells me not to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway,” said Reid in his remarks. “In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it’s true.”

They pay you a pretty good salary, Senator; and you consistently ignore their interests in favor of your Party’s narrow agenda. They pay your staff a decent wage too. Too bad you don’t have the good sense to listen to them either… ◄Dave►

This cannot stand! George Bush needs to be impeached immediately. He can’t or won’t deploy our military on our borders, but he thinks it is OK to deploy 20,000 of them in our midst?:

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department’s role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.

But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response — a nearly sevenfold increase in five years — “would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable,” Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted “a fundamental change in military culture,” he said.

The Pentagon’s plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command.
(Bold emphasis mine)

Domestic catastrophe? This is a domestic catastrophe! Has Bush ever read the Declaration of Independence? How about the Constitution? The Posse Comitatus Act? What the hell are they thinking in Washington? Dare we ask?

What color will their uniforms be? Brown Shirts? Perhaps shiny new SS insignia? This is America for Pete’s sake! The CinC has no business whatever quartering armed Federal troops among us, and we cannot permit it. If we don’t scream loud and long now, I suspect that Obama will perpetuate this travesty with relish. For the love of Liberty, please wake up America! ◄Dave►