About Me

Name: theoilpatchplug
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Change Means Never Having To Face Facts

By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.

It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, but also resent being told the facts.

An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short. "You don't like him and I do!" she said. End of discussion.

When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.

Of the four people running for president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls — Obama.

Some of Sen. Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.

The magic word "change" makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check "change." But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where "change" turned problems into catastrophes.

In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for "change."

That "change" brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars' despotism look like child's play. The communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.

Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised "change" that turned out to be even worse than what went before.

Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.

These ranged from Jim Jones, who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown, to Hitler and Mao, who led millions to their deaths.

What specifics do we know about Obama's track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he is elected?

We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.

We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae — and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.

Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of "change."

The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don't know. Or it ought to.

For the true believers — which includes many in the media — it is just a question of whether you like him.

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An open letter from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy

 

By The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Family Crest



Open letter from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy.
 
Dear Senator McCain, Sir,

YOU CHOSE a visit to a wind-farm in early summer 2008 to devote an entire campaign speech to the reassertion of your belief in the apocalyptic vision of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change - a lurid and fanciful account of imagined future events that was always baseless, was briefly exciting among the less thoughtful species of news commentators and politicians, but is now scientifically discredited.

With every respect, there is no rational basis for your declared intention that your great nation should inflict upon her own working people and upon the starving masses of the Third World the extravagantly-pointless, climatically-irrelevant, strategically-fatal economic wounds that the arrogant advocates of atmospheric alarmism admit they aim to achieve.

Britain and the United States, like England and Scotland on the first page of Macaulay's The Viscount Monckton of Brenchlysplendid History of England, are bound to one another by "indissoluble bonds of interest and affection". Here in this little archipelago from which your Pilgrim Fathers sailed, we have a love-love relationship with what Walt Whitman called your "athletic democracy". You came to our aid - to the aid of the world - when Britain had stood alone against the mad menace of Hitler. Your fearless forces and ours fight shoulder to shoulder today on freedom's far frontiers. The shortest but most heartfelt of our daily prayers has just three words: "God bless America!" For these reasons - of emotion as much as of economics, of affection as much as of interest - it matters to us that the United States should thrive and prosper. We cannot endure to see her fail, not only because if she fails the world fails, but also because, as the philosopher George Santayana once said of the British Empire and might well now have said of our sole superpower, "the world never had sweeter masters." If the United States, by the ignorance and carelessness of her classe politique, mesmerized by the climate bugaboo, casts away the vigorous and yet benign economic hegemony that she has exercised almost since the Founding Fathers first breathed life into her enduring Constitution, it will not be a gentle, tolerant, all-embracing, radically-democratic nation that takes up the leadership of the world.

It will be a radically-tyrannical dictatorship - perhaps the brutal gerontocracy of Communist China, or the ruthless plutocracy of supposedly ex-Communist Russia, or the crude, mediaeval theocracy of rampant Islam, or even the contemptible, fumbling, sclerotic, atheistic-humanist bureaucracy of the emerging European oligarchy that has stealthily stolen away the once-paradigmatic democracy of our Mother of Parliaments from elected hands here to unelected hands elsewhere. For government of the people, by the people and for the people is still a rarity today, and it may yet perish from the earth if America, its exemplar, destroys herself in the specious name of "Saving The Planet".


Science and the climate: the facts


The facts about "rising temperatures"

You have said: "We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures ... Today I'd like to focus on just one [challenge], and among environmental dangers it is surely the most serious of all. Whether we call it ‘climate change' or ‘global warming', in the end we're all left with the same set of facts. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly. ... Across the world average temperatures ... seem to reach new records every few years."

Here, Sir, are the facts about "rising temperatures". The facts which I shall give you in this letter are taken not from my own imagination, nor from the obscurantist reports of the UN's climate panel, nor from any lobby group, but from the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Very nearly all of the citations that support the crucial facts which your advisers seem not to have put before you, and which I shall set forth in this letter, are from peer-reviewed papers. Some, however, such as the documents of the UN's climate panel, the IPCC, are not peer-reviewed in the accepted sense of the term. Peer-reviewed papers will be indicated by citations with the date in parentheses, thus: Boffin et al. (2008). Papers that are not peer-reviewed will be indicated by square brackets, thus: IPCC [2007].

I begin with a geological and historical perspective on global mean surface temperature that your advisors seem to have withheld from you. For most of the past 600 million years, the mode of temperature - the temperature that most often prevailed globally - is thought to have been 12.5 °F higher than today's temperature: for today's temperature, in the perspective of the long recent history of our planet, is unusually low.

During each of the last four interglacial periods over the past half-million years, temperature was 5 to 8 °F warmer than the present (Petit et al., 1999).

For 2000 years in the Bronze Age, during the Holocene Climate Optimum (which is called an "Optimum" because warmer is better than cooler), temperature was up to 5 °F warmer than the present. Thanks to the warmer weather, on many continents simultaneously, the world's first great civilizations emerged.

It was also warmer during the 600 years of the Graeco-Roman warm period, when the twin civilizations that were the foundation of our own flourished in the Mediterranean. And it was warmer during the half millennium of the Mediaeval Climate Optimum, when the Renaissance reawakened humanity after the Dark Ages, and the great cathedrals and churches of Europe were built.

In 2001 the UN's climate panel made a maladroit and disfiguring attempt [IPCC, 2001] to heighten the baseless alarm that underlies all of its reports by denying that the Middle Ages were warmer than the present. However, three eminent statisticians working at the instigation of your own House of Representatives produced the definitive report [Wegman et al., 2005], confirming the peer-reviewed research of McIntyre & McKitrick (2003, 2005) establishing that the UN's graph had been doctored so as falsely to deny the reality of the mediaeval warm period, to whose existence hundreds of peer-reviewed papers from all parts of the globe attest.

At both Poles, it was warmer only half a century ago than it is today. For temperatures in the Arctic, see Soon et al. (2004). For the Antarctic, see Doran et al. (2002).

During the Maunder Minimum, a period of more than half a century ending in 1700 when there were no sunspots on the surface of our Sun, a Little Ice Age occurred all over the world (Hathaway, 2004). In 1700 there began a recovery in solar activity that has continued ever since, culminating in the 70-year Solar Grand Maximum that seems recently to have ended. During the Grand Maximum, the Sun was more active, and for longer, than during almost any previous similar period in the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al., 2005; and see Usoskin et al., 2003; and Hathaway, 2004). A symposium of the International Astronomical Union [2004] concluded that it is the Sun that was chiefly responsible for the warming of the late 20th century.

From 1700-1998, temperature rose at a near-uniform rate of about 1 °F per century [Akasofu, 2008]. In 1998, "global warming" stopped, and it has not resumed since: indeed, in the past seven years, temperature has been falling at a rate equivalent to as much as 0.7 °F per decade [Hadley Center for Forecasting, 2008; US National Climatic Data Center, 2008]. Very few news media have given any prominence to this long and pronounced downturn in the temperature trend.

It is now thought possible that no new global annual temperature record will be set until at least 2015 (Keenlyside et al., 2008). Yet the projection of the UN's climate panel had been that temperature would rise by about 1 °F during the 17 years to 2015. It is no surprise, then, that Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the panel's chairman, has called for a re-evaluation of its hitherto very high estimates of "climate sensitivity" - the temperature change in response to the ever-increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

The facts about supposedly "rising temperatures" which I have set out above, can be readily verified by your advisors. If you like, I can assist them in finding the relevant peer-reviewed papers and global temperature datasets. On these facts, there is no scientific basis for your assertion that "We have many advantages in the fight against ‘global warming', but time is not one of them."

Since the world is not warming at the rate projected by the UN's climate panel, it follows that the urgency relentlessly suggested by that panel and echoed in your speech is by no means as great as the UN's reports would have us believe.

The correct question, posed by Akasofu [2008], is this: Since the world has been warming at a uniform rate in parallel with the recovery of solar activity during the 300 years following the Maunder Minimum, and since humankind could not have had any significant influence over global temperature until perhaps 50 years ago, if then, is there any evidence whatsoever that the observed anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide concentration over the past half-century has had any appreciable influence, at all, on global temperature?

Another relevant question may occur to you: Is it not strange that the "global warming" scare has been rising in the media headlines and in the rhetoric of the classe politique throughout the past seven years, even though global temperature has been falling throughout that period?

Finally, now that you have the facts about temperature before you, it will be evident to you that you were not correct in having said that a new temperature record seems to be set every few years. Despite rapidly-rising carbon dioxide concentrations, there has been no new record year for global temperature in the ten years since 1998; and, in the United States, there has been no new record year for national temperature since 1934 - a record set almost three-quarters of a century ago, and well before humankind could have had any significant influence on temperature.


The facts about carbon dioxide concentration

You have said: "We know that greenhouse gasses are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change. And we know that among all greenhouse gasses, the worst by far is the carbon-dioxide that results from fossil-fuel combustion."

Sir, the first of your two quoted statements requires heavy qualification: the second is scientifically false. The combined effect of the two statements is profoundly misleading.

Greenhouse gases keep the world warm enough for plant and animal life to thrive. Without them, the Earth would be an ice-planet all of the time rather than some of the time. The existence of greenhouse gases, whether natural or anthropogenic, retains in the atmosphere some 100 Watts per square meter of radiant energy from the Sun (Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997) that would otherwise pass out uninterrupted to space.

According to the UN's climate panel [IPCC, 2007], anthropogenic "radiative forcings" from all sources compared with 1750 account for just 1.6% of this total, or perhaps almost 5% if temperature feedbacks as currently overestimated by the UN are taken into account. I say overestimated because the sum of the UN's high-end estimates of individual temperature feedbacks exceeds the maximum that is possible in the feedback equation used by the UN, implying that the central estimates are also very likely to be excessive. Your words "heavily implicated", therefore, seem somewhat overstated.

As to your second statement, the "worst" greenhouse gas - the one which, through its sheer quantity in the atmosphere, accounts for two-thirds of the 100 Watts per square meter of greenhouse-gas radiative forcing reported by Kiehl & Trenberth (2007, op. cit.) - is water vapor. Carbon dioxide accounts for little more than a quarter.

Two-thirds of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is naturally present, and carbon dioxide occupies just one-ten-thousandth more of the atmosphere today than it did 250 years ago (Keeling & Whorf, 2004, updated): for the atmosphere is large and we are small.

The UN's climate panel [IPCC, 2007] thinks that a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration compared with 1750 might occur later this century on current trends, and may lead to a global temperature increase of almost 6 °F. However, numerous papers in the peer-reviewed literature confirm that the UN's central climate-sensitivity projection must be excessive.

Allowing for the fact that the UN's climate panel has exaggerated the effects of temperature feedbacks, the temperature increase in consequence of a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration could be as little as 1 °F. Values as low as this have been suggested in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g. Chylek et al., 2007).

You have proposed, in your speech that three-fifths of the US economy should be closed down by 2060. Do you not think that a far greater degree of scientific certainty as to the effects of minuscule increases in carbon dioxide concentration on temperature would be advisable before strategic damage on any such scale is inflicted upon the US economy from within, and by a Republican?


The facts about the basis of the imagined scientific "consensus"

You have said: "We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great."

Sir, the implication of your quoted remark is that the "serious and credible scientists" who are warning us that "time is short and the dangers are great" outnumber the equally "serious and credible scientists" who are not warning us of anything of the kind. The reverse is the case. A recent survey (Schulte, 2008) of 539 peer-reviewed scientific papers published since January 2004 and selected at random using the search term "global climate change" reveals that not a single paper provides any evidence whatsoever that "time is short" or that "the dangers are great".

The notion of imminent, catastrophic climate change is a fiction that is almost wholly absent in the scientific literature. Indeed, the only papers that predict catastrophe are written by a tiny clique of closely-connected, extravagantly-funded, politically-biased scientists with unhealthily close political and financial connections to certain alarmist politicians in the party that you nominally oppose.

Suppose, ad argumentum, that the UN's exaggerated climate-sensitivity estimates, proven in the peer-reviewed literature and in the unfolding temperature record to be fantasies wholly unrelated either to scientific theory or to observed reality, are true. Even then, the disasters imagined by the UN's climate panel and by certain politicians are unlikely to occur. Since the UN's estimates are indeed exaggerations, and are known to be so, the only potentially-"credible" basis for the alarmism reflected in your speech falls away. In the scientific literature, there is no "consensus" whatsoever to the effect that anthropogenic "global warming" will be "catastrophic".

It is vital that you should understand the extent to which the UN's case for panic action is founded not upon theoretical proofs in climatological physics, nor upon real-world experimentation (for nearly all of the parameters necessary to the evaluation of climate sensitivity are not directly measurable, and their values can only be guessed) but upon computer models - in short, upon expensive guesswork.

However, using computer models to predict the climate, even if the input data were known rather than guessed, cannot ever be effective or accurate: for the climate, in the formal, mathematical sense, is chaotic. The late Edward Lorenz (1963), in the landmark paper that founded the branch of mathematics known as chaos theory, proved that long-run climate prediction is impossible unless we can know the initial state of the millions of variables that define the climate object, and know that state to a degree of precision that is and will always be in practice unattainable.

Why is such very great precision necessary? Because it is the common characteristic of any chaotic object, such as the climate, that the slightest perturbation, however minuscule, in the initial value of even one of that object's variables can induce substantial and unpredictable "phase transitions" - sudden changes of state - in the future evolution of the object. Unless the initial state of the object is known to an unattainably high degree of precision, neither the timing of the onset, nor the duration, nor the magnitude of these phase transitions can be predicted at all. Accordingly, the predictions go off track very suddenly and dramatically, but ineluctably.

The UN [IPCC, 2001], accepts that the climate is "a complex, non-linear, chaotic object", and, consequently, that "long-term prediction of climate states is impossible". Yet it then attempts the impossible by making predictions of climate sensitivity that are already being proven exaggerated by the failure of temperatures to rise as the computer models had predicted (or, recently, at all).

All of the climate models relied upon by the UN predict that the distinguishing characteristic or "fingerprint" of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing as opposed to any other forcings is that in the tropical mid-troposphere, about 6 miles up, temperature over the decades should rise at two or even three times the rate of increase observed at the tropical surface. However, this predicted "hot-spot" over the tropics is not observed in any of the tropospheric temperature datasets since reliable measurements were first taken by balloon-borne radiosondes 50 years ago.

Douglass & Knox (2006) and Douglass et al. (2008) have established that the absence of the "hot spot" predicted by the UN's models is real, and is not (as was suggested by Thorne et al., 2007) a measurement error or artifact within the estimated uncertainty interval of the observed record. Lindzen (2008) estimates that in the absence of the "hot-spot" the UN's estimate of climate sensitivity must be divided by at least three. Thus, making this adjustment alone, a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration would raise global temperature not by 6°F but by a harmless and beneficial 2 °F.

You also need to know that the values for climate sensitivity in the computer models - in short, the central estimates of how much the world's temperature will increase in response to a given rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - are not outputs from the models, but inputs to them. The computers are being told to assume high climate sensitivity [Akasofu, 2008].

Let me summarize the irremediably shaky basis for the UN's alarmist case. It is not based on physical theory. It is not based on real-world observation. It is based on computer modeling, in which - astonishingly - the models are told at the outset the values for the very quantity (temperature response to increased carbon dioxide concentration) that they are expected to find.

Now you will appreciate how ridiculous it is, to any competent mathematician, to hear the IPCC claiming that it is "90% certain" that most of the observed warming during the 50 years before the warming stopped in 1998 is anthropogenic. For a start, a 90% confidence level is not a recognized statistical interval: 95% confidence, or two standard deviations, is a recognized interval, but that would be even more absurd than trying to claim 90% confidence for a proposition that depends absolutely for its validity upon parameters that cannot be measured and can only be guessed: and a proposition that is demonstrated to be false with each successive year during which no further "global warming" takes place. It is regrettable that anyone should seek to make policy, as you have done, on such a manifestly unsound basis.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html at October 18, 2008 - 10:33:32 PM EDT
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Glenn Beck's Warnings : Prepare

Glenn Beck: What Can I Do to Prepare?

October 15, 2008 - 3:00 ET

Guys,

Here is the third letter I promised you. In my earlier letters I've explained "what happened" and "what's coming." Today, I want to answer the questions you've asked regarding "what can I do to prepare myself and my family."

Related Articles:
Glenn Beck: What happened?
Glenn Beck: What's Coming

The focus has to be on 'value' and 'values.' These are the concepts that too many of us have forgotten, celebrities dismissed as old-fashioned or politicians tried to convince us were no longer necessary.

The good news is that our current economic mess is manmade. We did this to ourselves by continuing to elect politicians who sold our country to militant community activists, greedy mortgage brokers and Wall Street types who placed profits above anything else. We were all involved, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. We made this problem by choosing to believe the lie that we could have it all and have it right now. But being manmade means we also have the capacity to solve it.

It is not going to be easy. I believe that the economy is going to get a lot worse. The 'experts' are telling us that we're headed towards at least 10% unemployment and a possible 10 year period of economic stagnation. I fear it could be much worse and so do many of the people that advise me on these matters.

What follows are the things that my family is doing to prepare for substantially tougher economic times.

Your Finances

I'm not a financial expert but even the 'experts' didn't know what our grandparents knew: unnecessary debt is something you have to avoid, it is not a good thing. In our version of the Roaring 20's, the financial elite had lawn parties in the Hamptons where invited guests arrived via helicopter. The parties we had didn't involve helicopters and other excesses but our job as responsible Americans will be to identify our 'helicopters.'

Soon, the Wall Street crowd will turn to the actual economy and the conversation and pressure will change to consumer spending. Remember, YOU are the engine of the US economy. Wall Street NEEDS you to spend. I pray that we hold fast to the 'storm clouds' that are still gathering and ignore the lures and lies that will attempt to hook you back into your old style 'lawn party.' We will continue to spend and consume. We just need to focus on a few out of fashion American values such as thrift, value and moderation.

You know what your family can afford and what it needs. Kids still need to go to college, broken cars still need to be repaired and worn-out appliances still have to be replaced. What needs to change is how we shop. We need to look for value and we MUST live within our means.

How do you know when you're getting something for a good value? Just imagine buying it (whatever it is) in front of dad. Can you imagine telling dad that you 'need' to spend an extra $3,000 so your car can come with that 'must have' automatic self-closing sunroof option? Or paying an extra $650 on a washing machine option so it can connect to the internet? I'm beginning to think that if dad won't spend the money on it, I probably don't need it. Dad is great at spotting value and it's his sense of values that makes him so good at it. I always try to think like my grandfather when I want to buy something, if in my head, he says, "Why, you've got a perfectly good one now," I know I don't need it.

The economy is in for a very rough landing. I think it's more and more probable that we hit a major long-term recession. That's not a reason to panic but if we know what's coming we can start to prepare now.

I don't know who you get your financial advice from (advisor, friend, on your own) but you need to ask these two questions:

First, what caused the current economic crisis?

If you can't answer this question or your financial planner can't give you an easily understandable answer, please get more information or think about replacing your financial planner. You need to know what got us here because that will help you understand what's coming.

Second, how bad will things get?

No one knows what's specifically coming our way but I do know that all possibilities are on the table. Whoever you're getting your financial advice from must be willing to admit that he or she doesn't have all the answers and that we are in relatively unchartered waters. If they don't think that this is a once in a lifetime event and just about anything could happen, move on.

Hyperinflation: Printing Money is Not the Answer

This is the real devil in our 'bailout' packages that seem to be coming every day. The same people that told me that there is no way we could go into a recession, let alone, a depression now tell me Wall Street and our politicians are too smart to create these doomsday conditions.

I don't know about you but I sure haven't been impressed with the Wall Street and Washington genius so far. After all, they weren't smart enough to figure out that 0% down on a 125% loans to individuals that were not required to present ID or a paycheck stubs was trouble.

I do know that if the answer was just to print more money our politicians would have solved this crisis $1.8 trillion dollars ago. But printing more money is not the answer, in fact, it's causing other problems and possibly setting us up for a long-term disaster. Every American must read up on and ponder what I believe is the real possibility of hyperinflation.

This past summer we had a $152 billion stimulus package, followed by a combined $123 billion bailout of AIG, which was followed by another $700 billion bailout bill. As I write this, politicians are promising swift action on yet another stimulus plan and the government has announced a direct injection of $250 billion into several large banks. No problem has ever been solved by just throwing money at it but plenty of problems have been caused by doing just that.

Countries that have tried to spend their way out of an economic crisis have always triggered inflation (i.e. Argentina, Israel and Iran). Hyperinflation is caused when people lose faith in the value of a currency, too much money is printed and there is no corresponding increase in productivity. So instead of printing $50 and $100 bills the government prints $300 and $500 bills but your $500 bill only buys $50 worth of goods. Soon the $500 bill is replaced by a $1000 bill.

One of the best examples of hyperinflation is the Weimar Republic where that government actually printed a one-trillion dollar bill and you still couldn't buy a newspaper with it.

Germany took its first inflationary steps when it decided to fight World War I on borrowed money. It didn't want to raise taxes and there was relatively little in national savings so it borrowed money to build and arm its war machine. Does this sound familiar? It should, it's what we're doing now.

The War which started in 1914 officially ended in 1919 and during that same period of time the prices of goods in Germany doubled. In other words, inflation was running about 20% a year.

Three years later, in 1922, those same goods doubled in price in just 5 months! The process continued to accelerate until menus in cafes had to be re-written throughout the day just to keep up with rising prices. When someone got paid they were met by their spouse who would literally run to spend the money as quickly as possible and no one saved money because the longer you held on to it the less you were able to buy. With no one saving and no countries lending any more money, the government did the only thing it could do, crank up the printing presses and print more money.

The same economic laws that applied to the Weimar Republic apply to America today.

Our government tells us that inflation was recently running at 5.4%. What they don't tell you is that in 1983 government changed the way they measure inflation. If the government used the same inflation measures that it used in 1983 inflation would be running between 10%-12%. Naturally, when the government altered the way it measured inflation it coincidently found that it wouldn't have to pay out as much money in Social Security and other benefits pegged to inflation.

We won't see a true spike in inflation until next fall. It's coming unless the government makes serious changes. If we continue to borrow billions of dollars a day from foreign countries while printing trillions more we are inviting, no begging, for hyperinflation to come and pay us a visit. Please consider this as you decide who to vote for in this upcoming election. Anyone, at any level, running for office who isn't talking about REAL and considerable cuts in government programs and avoiding new spending is either a fool or lying about what's coming.

You can prepare your family for economically tighter times. Our family has been preparing by buying food now that will last us for another 3 to 6 months. I want to be clear: we didn't run out and buy it all at once. Instead, when we went shopping and saw something on sale that we new we would be using in the next 3-6 months we bought a few more than we normally would. We're in the process of doing the same thing with our kids' clothes and shoes. They're growing-up and will need the next size-up in pants, shirts and shoes so Tania and I keep our eyes open for sales and when we see something that's a good value we buy it now knowing that in a year or two our kids will be able to use it and that prices could be substantially higher.

I think this is a good investment and a good way to spend money today that may be worth less tomorrow. Don't run out and liquidate your savings or assets to buy shoes and shirts for the next 10 years, plan and purchase with prudence and moderation.

Guns

You've asked me if you should go out and buy a gun. This is a very personal decision and I struggled for over 2 years trying to make this decision. I never wanted a gun in the house but after discussing it with Tania (and Adam) we decided it was the right decision for our family to have a gun in the home for self-defense.

Before we even thought of buying a gun and bringing it into our home, we spent countless hours at various gun shops asking lots of questions. We also reached out to the NRA (which, as you know, is one of the only organizations that I believe in and belong to) and took several courses in shooting and gun safety. If you're willing to make that kind of commitment then, and only then, can you start to consider whether or not you should purchase a gun.

If you decide to buy make sure you have a home safe that can be easily opened by you and your spouse. Also, when selecting a gun, make sure you ask your dealer for a gun that doesn't take exotic or hard to get ammunition.

The gun laws may DRAMATICALLY change with the election of the next President and a new Congress. Time may be of the essence on this issue so vote with that in mind.

Values

Why are we so different from grandma and grandpa? Remember how they made our clothes? They knitted sweaters and gloves, mended tears and placed patches over holes in our jeans and shirts. What do we do today? We go out and buy our kids clothes that are intentionally faded, frayed or torn. Our grandparents would think we were nuts for doing that.

How many times did we hear, "who left this light on" or "turn off the light when you're not using it." They didn't say this because they were swept up in the latest environmentally friendly fad; they said it because they hated waste. They didn't see themselves as conservationists but at their core they were the first truly 'green' generation.

It's their example that inspired me to re-discover the traditional American family eating plan in our home. This plan applies to mom, dad and all four kids. It's simple: if you don't finish your dinner, it's wrapped and put in the fridge and the next day you have to finish your leftovers.

What a great decision this has been because I'm more careful about what I put on my plate and have already had dinner table discussions with my kids about being grateful for what we've been blessed with and why it's important to avoid wasting food.

Gardening

Tania and I are planning on planting our very first garden next year (yes, I promise to send you pictures to prove it). We've already bought the fertilizer and seeds. In a way this is going to be our modern day Victory Garden our parents and grandparents planted during World War II.

A lot of people think we're planting the garden just for the food and although that's part of it, Tania and I really believe that our family will grow closer by all gardening together. Our hope is that our children will have a greater appreciation for the meals they eat when they experience the work in growing the food they will eat.

We've got so much to learn. I've already learned that there is a difference between heirloom seeds (not genetically modified) and those seeds which have been genetically modified. There are advantages and disadvantages to each type, so familiarize yourself with their respective pluses and minuses. Research what grows well in your area and what you will need to keep your plants healthy and growing.

I do want to share something I learned about seeds. Heirloom seeds are capable of producing viable seeds. So you will always have seeds to plant for the upcoming year. Several genetically modified seeds have 'terminator technology' (that's their phrase, not mine) which will prevent these seeds from reproducing viable seeds.

I'm for reasonable and safe genetically modified seeds and food. They allow people to grow crops where they normally wouldn't be able to and are more robust against disease and predators. Coming-up with all that technology is expensive so these seed producers recoup their costs by limiting the ability to reproduce. You need to have those seeds that are capable of reproducing.

Out of everything I have planned for next year, I can tell you that gardening ranks at the top. It is long term, it brings the family together on a project and it not only teaches my children science but the value of hard work. Does that make me a true sick freak?

Good Books

This is going to sound hokey but we all need to read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. We need to go to the original sources, not someone's interpretation of them. Reading these documents will remind us of what our Founding Fathers really intended for us. Their words will inspire us and renew our faith in America.

We need to familiarize ourselves with the founding principles our country and Constitution are built on. We need to better understand the Founding Fathers, what they believed and how they lived their lives.

The books we read should teach us about our heritage. They should inspire us and educate our children. We need books that tell us the greatness of America's past and the promise of her future. We need to read about the mistakes the government has made so we can avoid taking those same paths. The books that I think best capture these principles are:

Each of these books dramatically demonstrates that America was built on the collective sacrifices of individuals who willingly gave their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor." They remind us that real power rests with "We the People," not Wall Street, Washington or Hollywood.

Also, read books on history that can help you see what may be coming based on our past. The parallels are truly frightening. We are going down the same path by making the same mistakes. These books include:

Family Time

As a country we've neglected our most important asset and resource: our children. We've become so busy trying to provide the best for 'things' and opportunities for them that we work longer hours, spend more time away from home and too often don't give them the attention they need and deserve. If the economy starts to sink, this situation will get worse.

One of the best things we can do now is to build stronger ties with our spouse and children. Our family gets together once a week for a 'family night.'

This past week Raphe had the lesson, "my favorite animal." I was in charge of the game, everyone had to imitate their favorite animal and Tania baked cupcakes for our snack. It's amazing what miracles have taken place in those short 30 minute 'family night' get-togethers. We may have forgotten this in our 'Roaring 20's' mentality but it remains true: simple things have real and lasting value.

Tania and I also set aside time for just the two of us. We have date nights where just the two of us go out. It's usually nothing fancy. Sometimes we go out for a walk or just window shopping. We've even gone on a 'date' to the grocery store to pick-up some groceries. It's not really what you actually do but the fact that we spend time together. It refreshes me. It brings us together. I love this time.

Finally, just continue to seek out those sources you trust and continue to ponder and think the unthinkable. While these things hopefully don't ever take place, they are certainly possible and unfortunately becoming more probable everyday.

The good news is that there's still time to prepare ourselves and our families. We created this problem and we can solve it but there won't be any shortcuts or an easy way out.

We must vote for those candidates of any party that reflect these values: hard work, self-determination, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and honesty. Look to the character of anyone you chose to support. Their past does matter if they haven't learned from it. Their personal life is as relevant as their public one. We must be able to trust those who will be advising and leading us on what our country must do next.

The problems we face in this country can be traced back to the lack of trust. Our whole system fails if we do not trust it and right now we do not have that trust. In the last 20 years we have lost trust in our presidents, congress and court system. It was lost when politicians argued over the definition of 'is,' the duplicity on our border security, during the OJ trial, by a renegade 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 2006 Republican Mark Foley sex scandal and the 2008 Democrat Tim 'more moral future' Mahoney sex scandal and so many other hypocrisies and double-crosses. Our lost of trust was inevitable.

Our political system was not designed around the people in power or really even us. It began with the core belief that we were created and given rights by God. For America to truly fulfill its promise we must restore our faith in the only thing that is solid, unchanging and real: God.

As we find ourselves not trusting our leaders, institutions or even our currency, remember the secret is simple and found as close as your pocket or purse. How appropriate that on the symbol of our present troubles we find the answer: IN GOD WE TRUST.

Only those who are mentally, emotionally, spiritually and temporally prepared will be strong enough to help themselves and others. Many will be fearful if these things come to pass but if you prepare now, fear is the one thing you will not have to worry about. You are not a victim. You are not a survivor. You are a leader. You are an American.

We are all Americans. Let us recommit that, regardless of where we stand politically, we will do the tough things to save our nation because the task at hand requires no less.

The Americans of the past did not look for leadership to come from the politician in the White House for they knew American leadership only came from your house.

Fear not, stay strong and lead the way.

glenn

**************

Please pass this on to your friends and family...

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Government by ACORN Eggheads

 

Since ACORN is already getting a cut of the bailout pie, why not turn it over to them completely? We just turn the treasury over to them. They could pay us all $8 an hour and we could all be sainted community organizers.

Of course we would all need to meet quotas. Between insuring Obama’s elections for life every 4 years we could all become “fairness” police and anti-capitalist spies. Talking about a service economy-its Obomanomics 101.

Obama’s already agreed to get their input on this new administration. We’re halfway there. Let’s go whole hog! You get the pig –I’ll bring the lipstick, comrade.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Meet Your New Partner- Obama

 

He doesn’t show up on Fridays to meet payroll. He doesn’t even come to the office Christmas party. “Uncle Sugar” Obama will set up a Chicago style fascist-Marx kingdom and will try to control your life.

Obama will be your new partner and here’s how I get there. A good sized chunk of U.S. Banks will be owned and controlled by the government. We’ve been assured by the Bush Administration that it’s only a temporary situation brought on by the economic crisis. Have you ever known of a modern Democrat that’s ever given up any power without being forced?  Do you really believe Obama will be different?

He will control the supply of money, giving loans to crooks and cronies for dubious ventures with kick backs for other cronies and friends. He will use banks to collect taxes and gather information on political enemies. He will punish the disagreeable and reward those that play ball. Welcome to 3rd World America. The “haves” will have political connections and know how to enslave others in their schemes and the “have not’s” will only have faint memories of freedom. ACORN will become the business model for success in America. ACORN is already getting $420 per $100,000 mortgage kickback from our Democrat friends in Congress. That's half a billion a year.

Unfairness will be denounced in every speech and on posters plastered to walls with the image of the Obama urging you to give up more for your uncle. The middle classes will shrink into the helpless poor and the master bureaucrats and the few well connected business class. Our socialist banana republic will be a model for waste, corruption and extremes.

This isn’t my idea of Utopia, but it will be the results of Obama’s  twisted vision.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Last Chance, Turning Out the Lights

I am taking down all political videos between now and election day. If you want to see any of them again , look quick! Tomorrow 3 will be gone forever.
http://www.youtube.com/user/deanphilpot
 
Tomorrow Tighten Up , Operation Chaos will be gone.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congressman John Culberson, Texas Good Guy

GLENN: Let's go to Congressman Culberson. He is from Texas and he has the information on the election being stolen and also I want to talk to him a little bit about, you know, the spending in Washington. Congressman, how are you, sir?

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: Good morning, Glenn, it's great to be with you.

GLENN: Can I -- I want to get to the ACORN thing here and what congress and Nancy Pelosi said she was going to do and have more stimulus packages. I have to ask you, sir, what in the name of God are we doing with our currency? We are spending money like there's no tomorrow.

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: Glenn, it is terrifying. We in this bailout bill which I voted against twice, my core conservative instincts have never failed me, we've created -- literally we've given the secretary of the treasury the power of the king and King Henry is now free to just essentially do whatever he wants. He's got $700 billion between King Henry and the Federal Reserve prompting vast amounts of cash into the banking system which as far as I can tell the banks are burying the money in the backyard. You are right. They are loading up our kids' future generations are --

GLENN: Congressman, congressman, I talked to a guy -- in fact, I talked to several people this weekend. One of the guys is -- I referred to as my deep throat. He has been in the room with Bernanke and Paulson and everybody else and he has seen all of this stuff. He talked to me over the weekend and he said, "Glenn, everybody I know is reading about the Weimar Republic. He said, the money that is being pumped in is staggering and I don't know how we'll ever pull that money back." He said, we're all reading the Weimar Republic. That's frightening, Congressman.

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: It is. And when I first learned about David Walker, the comptroller, the auditor of the U.S. began talking about this years ago, Glenn, on the danger to the country of running up the $60 trillion-plus of unfunded liability, I began carrying around in my wallet, and I have it here now and we need to be sure to get you one as you're one of my heroes, a $50 billion bank note from Zimbabwe, like the Weimar Republic, absolutely.

GLENN: Yeah. And Congressman, I mean, please go to Washington today and talk to them about, again the Treasury is talking about buying into these banks for what is rumored to be at this point a rumor, at $1.8 trillion, to go in and bail these banks out and buy into these banks. This is, A, socialism; and B, where are we getting the $1.8 trillion.

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: By selling debt on the international bond market, selling T-bills most of which are bought by the Chinese or Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds and because the bill says we can bail out foreign banks, that is true statement that we are borrowing -- excuse me. The taxpayers are borrowing money from Chinese and Middle Eastern banks to bail out Chinese and Middle Eastern banks and we are nationalizing, socializing the banking system following the French and British model. And then also don't forget, Glenn, that the bill, the entire thrust of this debate which was dropped on us with no notice and he admits he's known about it for a year. The entire debate, Glenn, was that the purpose of the bill was to buy up the toxic debt.

Now, the bill -- he can do whatever he wants under the bill, but the focus was, hey, guys, you've got to vote for this because we have to buy up this toxic debt.

GLENN: Is it true --

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: Nationalize --

GLENN: I'm sorry. Is it true that people were told in your position that there would be martial law if, as one of the consequences if this didn't happen?

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: I don't remember that but we were told it was a disaster. We were told it was epic, we're at the cliff and we have to buy up these toxic assets. So all these guys that voted for the bill -- and again I voted against it twice, two of the best no votes I ever cast. But these guys were told this has to be done, it's an emergency, we're going to buy up the toxic debt. It was not -- may have discussed somewhere, somehow, but they were not told that they were going to nationalize the banks. This is literally switching, pivoting off of -- you know, after "Give me the $700 billion, we're going to buy up toxic debt," this weekend Paulson says, no, no, we're not going to do that; we're going to do something else. So all these guys that walked the plank, these Republicans that voted for the bill and other folks that voted for the bill are now being told, you know, your vote didn't leave me anything, we're just going to do something totally different.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So now let's talk about ACORN. What is happening in Houston? There has been a couple of arrests in Houston and this is happening all across the country. Is there -- can we even trust this election, that there won't be massive voter fraud?

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: There is going to be voter fraud. We don't know how massive it is but no question, ACORN and other organizations like them are going to be a big part of it because they have pled guilty. I mean, ACORN has literally pled guilty to false -- to fraudulent voter registration. And in Houston we discovered there's about 4,000 dead people on the voter rolls here. It's going on around the country. We're the only nation I think on the face of the Earth that doesn't have a citizenship list, a citizenship roll that you can just check the database against voter rolls, and ACORN has a long history of this, Glenn. And, you know, that's particularly outrageous is that the mortgage bailout, the Freddie and Fannie Mae bailout bill which was done this August which I also voted against because that nationalized the mortgage industry, that bill, Barney Frank voted language in that bill this summer which hard wires $420 of a $100,000 mortgage to ACORN, La Raza and other organizations like --

GLENN: That's an outrage. Why didn't the American people know? That's an absolute outrage.

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: And it is forever. It bypass -- I'm on the appropriations committee. It bypasses appropriations, bypasses the congress, it's in your closing documents. This from day forward we will all be paying 4.2% basis fee of $420 for every $100,000 mortgage in your closing paper will have papers. You'll have a new little line in there, a new fee that we're going to all pay to go straight to these affordable housing funds which the states then hard wire to La Raza, ACORN, groups like that.

GLENN: Congressman, what the hell has happened to our country? All of a sudden we are a -- we are marching towards Marxism. We are marching to a place that this -- congressman, you know it and I know it. You are from Texas. This ain't gonna hold. This is not going to last.

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: No, it's very scary and I've had a lot of fellow Texans tell me maybe we didn't make such a good decision back in 1845, you know? Maybe we should have stuck it out as the Republic of Texas and it's very scary. It's very scary and it has happened so rapidly, it just takes your breath away that we not only are marching, we are already socialized the mortgage industry. We've already nationalized the banking system. We are becoming France and in Texas we done want to be France.

GLENN: So what does the average person do, Congressman? We have spoken out. You I'm sure you saw it with John McCain over the weekend. People are pissed off. They are saying, I want my country back!

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: All of us need to not only register, turn out and vote, demand that candidates, quite frankly we need to adhere I think as Republicans, tuned demand that your election people are going to stick to the Constitution, they are going to essentially follow -- I call myself a Jeffersonian Republican. If we just stick to the core principles, they have always worked. Mr. Jefferson, Glenn -- and remember this is so true. Jefferson always said if we follow core Republican principles, the knot will always untie itself. We've got all the tools we need to solve this and every other problem we've got. It's in the Constitution. You stick to the Tenth Amendment. You get this out of the hands of Washington. Trust individual Americans to make the right decisions for the right reasons and trust their good sense and their good hearts and shut down whole sectors of the government. We need frankly a revolution at the ballot box in electing frankly -- and what's the best term for it? Libertarian Republicans. We need people that are going to believe and be committed to individual liberty and the Constitution because if we don't, you know, the country, it's very frightening, the debt, the deficit, the Weimar Republic days may not be too far away with this debt that we are inheriting, the $13 trillion. We just ran out of digits on the national debt clock. I'm sure you saw that.

GLENN: I did.

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: But remember this is the greatest country, we live in the greatest country in the history of the world, the infinite resourcefulness of this country. No matter how bleak it gets, we've got to remember we've pulled out of worse problems before and we can do this. Remember we have a revolution every two years. It's this November 4th. We've got to every single one of us that cares about this get out and vote.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Congressman. We'll talk again.

CONGRESSMAN CULBERSON: Thank you.

GLENN: Boy, coming from a libertarian Republican. That's what you need to be voting for. Boy, you could say that again. It's time for the libertarians to really start taking a hold, choking the bat snot out of those votes in congress.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Crash Equasion

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Call Fema , Weather Alert, We Could All Die, Panic!!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

1 Man Drill Rig... They don't make like this anymore

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Soft Landing for some

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Riches Beyond Your Wildest Dreams... Click Here

 

Congratulations.. Your E-MAIL Address has won the Obama National Lottery

Please forgive me for contacting you through these unusual means. I am Kaddafi Hussein Sadam Jefferson, illegitimate half brother and banker to the next President for Life Obama. Due to the death of you recent Uncle Samuel, I have been tasked to distribute his immense wealth to people like you through a national lottery via the Alibank N.O.Limited , here in Kenya.  

By winning this lottery you and members of your family will be entitled to numerous benefits and special privileges only awarded to the elites of your society.  These benefits include front row seats to the annual May Day Parade for life, head of the line passes for bread lines, soup lines and medical care.

To validate this award you need only to forward some information via email to confirm your claim. Please forward your full name, social security number, bank and savings accounts numbers, a copy of your driver’s license ,and a voter registration card with Democratic endorsement. You will also be required to submit a personal services contract to supply time and devotion for the benefit of your fellow man and planet.

I look forward to receiving your information to expedite you claim to the riches of your former Uncle and his nation’s wealth. You may ask if we can to this. Yes, we can.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Did OBAMA write Dreams from my Father? Ayres Connection



October 09, 2008

Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?

By Jack Cashill
Prior to 1990, when Barack Obama contracted to write Dreams From My Father, he had written very close to nothing.  Then, five years later, this untested 33 year-old produced what Time Magazine has called -- with a straight face -- "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."

The public is asked to believe Obama wrote Dreams From My Father on his own, almost as though he were some sort of literary idiot savant.  I do not buy this canard for a minute, not at all.  Writing is as much a craft as, say, golf.  To put this in perspective, imagine if a friend played a few rounds in the high 90s and then a few years later, without further practice, made the PGA Tour.  It doesn't happen.

And yet, given the biases of the literary establishment, no reviewer of note has so much as questioned Obama's role in the writing, then or now. As the New York Times gushed, Obama was "that rare politician who can write . . . and write movingly and genuinely about himself."  These accolades matter all the more because Obama has built his political persona around his presumably superior intellect, Dreams being exhibit A.

Shy of a confession by those involved, I will not be able to prove conclusively that Obama did not write this book.  As shall be seen, however, there are only two real possibilities: one is that Obama experienced a near miraculous turnaround in his literary abilities; the second is that he had major editorial help, up to and including a ghostwriter. 

The weight of the evidence overwhelming favors the latter conclusion and strongly suggests who that ghostwriter is.  In that this remains something of a work in progress, I am willing to test my hypothesis against any standard of proof and appreciate any and all good leads.

In my career in advertising and publishing, I have reviewed the portfolios of a thousand professional writers, all of them crowded with writing samples, but only a handful of these writers would have been capable of having a written a book as stylish as Dreams.  I have also written a book on intellectual fraud, Hoodwinked, and examined any number of bogus biographies that excited the literary left to the point of complicity, Edward Said's and Rigoberta Menchu's prominent among them, Menchu winning a Nobel Prize for hers.  Obama's ascent seems to follow a century-old pattern.

Tracing Obama's literary ascent is complicated by what Politico.com calls a  "scant paper trail." That trail begins at Occidental College whose literary magazine published two of Obama's poems -- "Pop" and "Underground" -- in 1981. Obama calls it some "very bad poetry," and he does not sell himself short.  From "Underground":

Under water grottos, caverns

Filled with apes

That eat figs.

Stepping on the figs

That the apes

Eat, they crunch.

The apes howl, bare

Their fangs, dance . . .


It would be another decade before Obama had anything in print and this an edited, unsigned student case comment in the Harvard Law Review unearthed by Politico. Attorneys who reviewed the piece for Politico described it as "a fairly standard example of the genre."

Of note, Politico reporters Ben Smith and Jeffrey Resner observe that "the temperate legal language doesn't display the rhetorical heights that run through his memoir, published a few years later."

Once elected president of the Harvard Law Review --more of a popularity than a literary contest -- Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal. As Matthew Franck has pointed out in National Review Online, "A search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at any time."

A 1990 New York Times profile on Obama's election as Harvard's first black president caught the eye of agent Jane Dystel. She persuaded Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, to authorize a roughly $125,000 advance for Obama's proposed memoir.

With advance in hand, Obama repaired to Chicago where he dithered.   At one point, in order to finish without interruption, he and wife Michelle decamped to Bali.  Obama was supposed to have finished the book within a year. Bali or not, advance or no, he could not. He was surely in way over his head.

According to a surprisingly harsh 2006 article by liberal publisher Peter Osnos, which detailed the "ruthlessness" of Obama's literary ascent, Simon & Schuster canceled the contract.  Dystel did not give up.  She solicited Times Book, the division of Random House at which Osnos was publisher. He met with Obama, took his word that he could finish the book, and authorized a new advance of $40,000.

Then suddenly, somehow, the muse descended on Obama and transformed him from a struggling, unschooled amateur, with no paper trail beyond an unremarkable legal note and a poem about fig-stomping apes, into a literary superstar.

To be sure, it is not unusual for successful politicians to hire ghostwriters -- John McCain gives due credit to Mark Salter for his memoir, Faith of My Fathers -- but it is highly unusual for unknown young Chicago lawyers to hire ghostwriters.

I have attempted to contact Dystel by phone and email without success.  It is highly unlikely she refashioned the book, and Osnos admittedly did not.  If my suspicions are correct, the ghost on this book shared many of Obama's sentiments, spoke his language and spent considerable time reworking the text.

I bought Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, for reasons unrelated to this project.  As I discovered, he writes surprisingly well and very much like "Obama."  In fact, my first thought was that the two may have shared the same ghostwriter.  Unlike Dreams, however, where the high style is intermittent, Fugitive Days is infused with the authorial voice in every sentence. What is more, when Ayers speaks, even off the cuff, he uses a cadence and vocabulary consistent with his memoir.  One does not hear any of Dreams in Obama's casual speech.

Obama's memoir was published in June 1995.  Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, get appointed chairman of the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant.  In the fall of that same year, 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, helped blaze Obama's path to political power with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.

In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama's career. And, as Ayers had to know, a lovely memoir under Obama's belt made for a much better resume than an unfulfilled contract over his head.

For simplicity sake, I will refer to the author of Dreams as "Obama."  Without question, he contributed much of the book's raw material, especially the long-winded accounting of events and conversations, polished just well enough to pass muster.  The book's fierce, succinct and tightly coiled social analysis more closely matches the style of Fugitive Days, a much tighter book.

Ayers and Obama have a good deal in common. In the way of background, both grew up in comfortable white households and have struggled to find an identity as righteous black men ever since.  Just as Obama resisted "the pure and heady breeze of privilege" to which he was exposed as a child, Ayers too resisted "white skin privilege" or at least tried to.

"I also thought I was black," says Ayers only half-jokingly. As proof of his righteousness, Ayers named his first son "Malik" after the newly Islamic Malcolm X and the second son "Zayd" after Zayd Shakur, a Black Panther killed in a shootout that claimed the life of a New Jersey State Trooper. 

Tellingly, Ayers, like Obama, began his career as a self-described "community organizer," Ayers in inner-city Cleveland, Obama in inner-city Chicago. In short, Ayers was fully capable of crawling inside Obama's head and relating in superior prose what the Dreams' author calls a "rage at the white world [that] needed no object."

Indeed, in Dreams, it is on the subject of black rage that Obama writes most eloquently.   Phrases like "full of inarticulate resentments," "unruly maleness," "unadorned insistence on respect" and "withdrawal into a smaller and smaller coil of rage" lace the book.

In Fugitive Days, "rage" rules and in high style as well.  Ayers tells of how his "rage got started" and how it evolved into an "uncontrollable rage -- fierce frenzy of fire and lava." Indeed, the Weathermen's inaugural act of mass violence was the "Days of Rage" in 1969 Chicago.

As in Chicago, that rage led Ayers to a sentiment with which Obama was altogether familiar, "audacity!"  Ayers writes, "I felt the warrior rising up inside of me -- audacity and courage, righteousness, of course, and more audacity."  This is one of several references.

The combination of audacity and rage has produced two memoirs that follow oddly similar rules.  Ayers describes his as "a memory book," one that deliberately blurs facts and changes identities and makes no claims at history.  Obama says much the same.  In Dreams, some characters are composites.  Some appear out of precise chronology.  Names have been changed.

As a control, allow me to introduce my own book, Sucker Punch, which is no small part a memoir about race, specifically in my relationship, at great remove, with Muhammad Ali and the world of boxing.  In the book, I describe my own unreconstructed coming of age in racially charged Newark, New Jersey as it happened.  I change no names, create no composite characters, alter no chronologies.  Most memoirs observe the same conventions.  Dreams and Fugitive Days, however, are both suffused with repeated reference to lies, lying and what Ayers calls, in his pitch perfect post-modern patois, "our constructed reality."

"But another part of me knew that what I was telling them was a lie," writes Obama, "something I'd constructed from the scraps of information I'd picked up from my mother."

"That whole first year seemed like one long lie," Obama writes of his first year in college in Los Angeles, one of at least a dozen references to lies and lying in "Dreams," a figure nearly matched in "Fugitive Days."

The reader knows that Ayers -- with some justification -- has much to hide.  He senses that Obama does too, but he is never quite sure why.  This presumed poetic license leads to the frequent manipulation of dates to make a political point. 

"I saw a dead body once, as I said, when I was ten, during the Korean War," writes Ayers. This correlation is important enough that Ayers mentions it twice.  The only problem is that Ayers was eight when the Korean War ended.

Obama tells us that when he was ten, he and his family visited the mainland.  On the trip, back in their motel room, they watched the Watergate Hearings on TV. The problem, of course, is that those hearing started just before Obama turned twelve.

One could forgive a single missed date, but inconsistent dates and numbers appear frequently in both books and often reinforce some moment of lost innocence.  In the same spirit, both books abound in detail too closely remembered and conversations too well recorded.  These moments in both books occasionally lead to an awareness of the nation's seemingly ineradicable racism.

In 1970, for instance, the 9-year-old Obama alleges to be visiting the American embassy Indonesia. While waiting, he chances upon "a collection of Life magazines neatly displayed in clear plastic binders."

In one magazine, he reads a story about a black man with an "uneven, ghostly hue," who has been rendered grotesque by a chemical treatment.  "There were thousands of people like him," Obama learned, "black men and women back in America who'd undergone the same treatment in response to advertisements that promised happiness as a white person."

Obama's attention to detail is a ruse. Life never ran such an article. When challenged, Obama claimed it was Ebony. Ebony ran no such article either.  Besides, black was beautiful in 1970.

In a similar vein, Ayers tells of hitching a ride in Missouri with "Bud," the driver of a "brand-new Peterbilt truck."  The man proceeds to regale Ayers with a string of dirty jokes -- at least two of them retold word for word -- before reaching under his seat and pulling out a large pistol, his "N****r neutralizer."

"White people can never quite remember the scope and scale of the slavocracy," Ayers reminds the reader again and again, writing as though he were not a member of this benighted race.

These parallels intrigue perhaps, but they prove little.  To add a little science to the analysis, I identified two similar "nature" passages in Obama's and Ayers' respective memoirs, the first from Fugitive Days:

"I picture the street coming alive, awakening from the fury of winter, stirred from the chilly spring night by cold glimmers of sunlight angling through the city."

The second from Dreams:

"Night now fell in midafternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairie storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds."

These two sentences are alike in more than their poetic sense, their length and their gracefully layered structure.  They tabulate nearly identically on the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), something of a standard in the field.

The "Fugitive Days" excerpt scores a 54 on reading ease and a 12th grade reading level.  The "Dreams'" excerpt scores a 54.8 on reading ease and a 12th grade reading level.  Scores can range from 0 to 121, so hitting a nearly exact score matters.

A more reliable data-driven way to prove authorship goes under the rubric "cusum analysis" or QSUM.  This analysis begins with the measurement of sentence length, a significant and telling variable.  To compare the two books, I selected thirty-sentence sequences from Dreams and Fugitive Days, each of which relates the author's entry into the world of "community organizing."

"Fugitive Days" averaged 23.13 words a sentence.  "Dreams" averaged 23.36 words a sentence.  By contrast, the memoir section of "Sucker Punch" averaged 15 words a sentence.

Interestingly, the 30-sentence sequence that I pulled from Obama's conventional political tract, Audacity of Hope, averages more than 29 words a sentence and clocks in with a 9th grade reading level, three levels below the earlier cited passages from "Dreams" and "Fugitive Days." The differential in the Audacity numbers should not surprise.  By the time it was published in 2006, Obama was a public figure of some wealth, one who could afford editors and ghost writers. 

The publisher of Dreams, the openly liberal Peter Osnos, tells how this came to be.  According to Osnos, Dreams took off during Obama's much-publicized race for the U.S. Senate in 2004, nearly ten years after its modest release.   After winning the election, Obama dumped his devoted long time agent, Jane Dystel, and signed a seven-figure deal with Crown, using only a by-the-hour attorney.

Obama pulled off the deal before being sworn in as Senator, this way to avoid the disclosure and reporting requirements applicable to members of Congress. To his credit, Osnos publicly scolds Obama for his "ruthlessness" and "his questionable judgment about using public service as a personal payday."

Unfortunately, the technology is not currently available to do a fully reliable authorship analysis.  As expert in the field Patrick Juola of Duquesne University observed,  “The accuracy simply isn't there.”  He cautioned that for high stakes issues like this one, “The repercussions of a technical error could be a disaster (in either direction).” 

That much said, preliminary QSUM analysis supports an Ayers-Obama link.  Systems designer Ed Gold--with twenty years of high-level experience in image and signal processing, pattern recognition, and classifier design and implementation--volunteered to run a QSUM scan on multiple excerpts from both memoirs. “I have completed the analysis,” he wrote me, “and I think you will be pleased with the findings.” In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams, he found “a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples that I processed.”

Like Juola, Gold recognized the limitations of the process and of his own resources. He has volunteered to make the raw data available to more established authorship authentication experts, and I will be happy to pass that data along.  Gold saw the complementary value, however, in text analysis, as did Juola, who encouraged me “to do what you're already doing . . . good old-fashioned literary detective work.”

Given that advice, I dug deeper into both memoirs and established one metaphoric thread that ties the two books together in a way I believe is just shy of conclusive, a thread that leads back to Bill Ayers's stint, after dropping out of college, as a merchant seaman.

"I'd thought that when I signed on that I might write an American novel about a young man at sea," says Ayers in his memoir, Fugitive Days, "but I didn't have it in me."

The experience had a powerful impact on Ayers.  Years later, he would recall a nightmare he had while crossing the Atlantic, "a vision of falling overboard in the middle of the ocean and swimming as fast as I could as the ship steamed off and disappeared over the horizon."

Although Ayers has tried to put his anxious ocean-going days behind him, the language of the sea will not let him go. "I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience," Ayers writes of his maritime adventures.  Yet curiously, much of this same nautical language flows through Obama's earth-bound memoir.

"Memory sails out upon a murky sea," Ayers writes at one point.  Indeed, both he and Obama are obsessed with memory and its instability.  The latter writes of its breaks, its blurs, its edges, its lapses.  Obama also has a fondness for the word "murky" and its aquatic usages.  

"The unlucky ones drift into the murky tide of hustles and odd jobs," he writes, one of four times "murky" appears in Dreams.  Ayers and Obama also speak often of waves and wind, Obama at least a dozen times on wind alone.  "The wind wipes away my drowsiness, and I feel suddenly exposed," he writes in a typical passage.  Both also make conspicuous use of the word "flutter."

Not surprisingly, Ayers uses "ship" as a metaphor with some frequency.  Early in the book he tells us that his mother is "the captain of her own ship," not a substantial one either but "a ragged thing with fatal leaks" launched into a "sea of carelessness."

Obama too finds himself "feeling like the first mate on a sinking ship." He also makes a metaphorical reference to "a tranquil sea."  More intriguing is Obama's use of the word "ragged" as an adjective as in the highly poetic "ragged air" or "ragged laughter."

Both books use "storms" and "horizons" both as metaphor and as reality. Ayers writes poetically of an "unbounded horizon," and Obama writes of "boundless prairie storms" and poetic horizons-"violet horizon," "eastern horizon," "western horizon."

Ayers often speaks of "currents" and "pockets of calm" as does Obama, who uses both as nouns as in "a menacing calm" or "against the current" or "into the current." The metaphorical use of the word "tangled" might also derive from one's nautical adventures.  Ayers writes of his "tangled love affairs" and Obama of his "tangled arguments."

In Dreams, we read of the "whole panorama of life out there" and in Fugitive Days, "the whole weird panorama."  Ayers writes of still another panorama, this one "an immense panorama of waste and cruelty."  Obama employs the word "cruel" and its derivatives no fewer than fourteen times in Dreams. 

On at least twelve occasions, Obama speaks of "despair," as in the "ocean of despair." Ayers speaks of a "deepening despair," a constant theme for him as well.  Obama's "knotted, howling assertion of self" sounds like something from the pages of Jack London's "The Sea Wolf."

In Obama's defense, he did grow up in Hawaii.  Still, the short Hawaii stretch of his memoir is largely silent on the island's natural appeal. Sucker Punch again offers a useful control.  It makes no reference at all, metaphorical or otherwise, to ships, seas, oceans, calms, storms, wind, waves, horizons, panoramas, or to things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, or murky.  None.  And yet I have spent a good chunk of every summer of my life at the ocean.

If there is any one paragraph in Dreams that has convinced me of Ayers' involvement it is this one, in which Obama describes the Black Nationalist message:

"A steady attack on the white race...  served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair."

As a writer, especially in the pre-Google era of Dreams, I would never have used a metaphor as specific as "ballast" unless I knew exactly what I was talking about.  Seaman Ayers most surely did. 

One more item of interest.  In his 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent, Bill Ayers walks the reader through his Hyde Park neighborhood and identifies the notable residents therein.  Among them are Muhammad Ali, “Minister” Louis Farrakhan (of whom he writes fondly),  “former mayor” Eugene Sawyer, “poets” Gwendolyn Brooks and Elizabeth Alexander, and “writer” Barack Obama.

In 1997, Obama was an obscure state senator, a lawyer, and a law school instructor with one book under his belt that had debuted two years earlier to little acclaim and lesser sales.  In terms of identity, he had more in common with mayor Sawyer than poet Brooks.  The “writer” identification seems forced and purposefully so, a signal perhaps to those in the know of a persona in the making that Ayers had himself helped forge.

None of this, of course, proves Ayers' authorship conclusively, but the evidence makes him a much more likely candidate than Obama to have written the best parts of Dreams.

The Obama camp could put all such speculation to rest by producing some intermediary sign of impending greatness -- a school paper, an article, a notebook, his Columbia thesis, his LSAT scores -- but Obama guards these more zealously than Saddam did his nuclear secrets.  And I suspect, at the end of the day, we will pay an equally high price for Obama's concealment as Saddam's.

Jack Cashill is the author, among other books, of Hoodwinked:  How Intellectual Hucksters Hijacked American Culture.  He has a Ph.D. in American studies from Purdue University.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html at October 09, 2008 - 10:47:09 AM EDT
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Glenn Beck Explains to His Family, Panic

Glenn Beck: What happened?

October 6, 2008 - 13:01 ET

Glenn's letter to his family explaining how we got into this economic crisis...
Yes, another email letter from your crazy brother. You raised a lot of questions in your last email and I am going to try to answer all of them.  

I think all of your questions fall  into three areas:  (1) how did we get here; (2) what's coming; and (3) what can I do to prepare myself and my family.

Consider this email as my answer to your first question, "how did we get here?". I'll be sending you 2 more emails answering your other two questions.  Since there's a lot of misinformation out there I will document each of the facts in my emails so you know where I pulled the information from and where you can go to read and learn more.

What you shouldn't do is panic. We'll get through this--don't pull all of your money out of the bank but have enough cash on-hand to meet any possible emergencies.

First, you've got to get the stock market's ups-and-downs out of your mind. The recent drops and upticks are short-term. Our economic problems are much bigger and deeper. Too many people believe that if the stock market goes up our problems are behind us and that's simply not true.

Last week the market had big drops and big upswings. In the end, the market ended down more than 800 points and lots of 'experts' were shouting it was a time to buy. I don't see it that way.

Did you know that just two days after the stock market crashed in October 1929 the market actually gained ground the next two days? The New York Times reported that "the market quickly regained its poise and stability...." Today, Wall Street 'pros' are telling us it's a good time to invest because Warren Buffet is investing. A lot of people were probably using the same argument when the Rockefeller family was buying stocks right after the 1929 crash, what they didn't know was that it would take Wall Street ten more years to see those prices again.

Our current economic crisis was caused by politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, who perverted the American Dream by treating home ownership as an undeniable right rather than what it really is, a privilege. President Bush aggressively promoted the benefits of home ownership through various policy positions, including a reckless zero down-payment initiative for some homebuyers and praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even after concerns about their accounting standards began to surface.

Home ownership has always been part of the American Dream. It allows individuals and families to build wealth by having them pay themselves instead of a landlord or rental company and vests people in their communities by grounding them in local schools, stores and government.

The concept that owning a home was a privilege and not a right began to change in 1992 following a flawed Boston Federal Reserve Board study which allegedly found subtle discrimination in loan and mortgage lending by banks and mortgage lenders.

Politicians didn't care that the study was full of errors. The study found discrimination took place when five minority applicants were rejected for special low-income loans even though the applicants were rejected because they made too much money to qualify for a low-income loan, not because of their race. The report also classified as 'rejected' the applications of eight minority borrowers even though these borrowers voluntarily withdrew their mortgage applications. The study's sloppiness also went the other way.

The study reported that a white applicant was approved for a $3,115,000 loan in order to purchase a home valued at $445,000. It was later demonstrated that the actual loan was approved for $311,500, far less than $3 million reported and more importantly, less than the home's purchase price. When these and other errors were corrected no evidence of discrimination existed.

But politicians didn't care. They used this report as the basis to fix a problem which didn't exist. Leading the charge for change was President Clinton who immediately set-out to rework the Community Reinvestment Act to give federal officials the power to pressure banks to make loans they otherwise considered too risky or uneconomical.


Traditional lending requirements were labeled 'outdated' and discriminatory. What 'traditional lending requirements' were viewed as 'outdated' and 'discriminatory'? (1) banks were told that a "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" and that "past credit problems"
should be viewed and considered in light of any "extenuating circumstances" so loans could be extended when they otherwise would have been denied; (2) banks were encouraged to let borrowers without enough money for a down-payment make-up any deficiency with "gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations, or municipal agencies" even though banks considered this risky as the home buyer would have little or no equity in the house; (3) banks were also instructed that borrowers who received child support, welfare payments or unemployment benefits could count that as 'income' for borrowing purposes.

Call me crazy but if you need to count child support money that's intended for your child, or are in such bad economic shape that you're relying on welfare payments to make ends meet or are unemployed, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be buying a house. Too bad our politicians and the 'best and brightest' on Wall Street couldn't figure that out!

Community groups like ACORN, threatened to cry racism if banks didn't increase their loans to subprime borrowers. Banks typically avoided subprime loans as they carried a greater risk of default, but with law on its side, ACORN and other groups intimidated lending institutions into making such loans.

Banks soon learned, however, that making subprime loans actually could increase their profits without increasing their risk. Once the banks extended a loan to a subprime borrower that loan could then be sold by the bank to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, two government sponsored entities charged with making home ownership affordable to all Americans.

Banks, Wall Street, and mortgage lenders were soon eager to extend mortgages to subprime borrowers because they could make lots of money without carrying any risk. Fannie and Freddie carried all the risk once the original lending agency sold the loan to them. And once Fannie and Freddie bought the loan this freed up the banks to make even more subprime loans.

So everyone was a winner. The subprime borrower got the money to buy a house. The banks generated mortgages and made a nice profit and Fannie and Freddie executives made tens-of-millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses by hitting their annual goals.

The problem was that in order to keep all of this going lending standards were continually lowered to help the next level of subprime borrowers qualify for mortgages and no one had an incentive to make sure that the new subprime borrowers would actually be capable of making regular mortgage payments. The banks which extended the loans really didn't care because they were just going to sell the loan off to Fannie or Freddie. Fannie and Freddie weren't too concerned because it wasn't their money-they knew that they were insured by the 'full faith and credit' of the federal government (that's government lingo for "you and me").

So when federal regulators began to warn the executives at Fannie and Freddie about the increasing risks of non-payment by subprime borrowers the companies did nothing and when the regulators took their concerns to congress their warnings were met with scorn and contempt. The politicians who received the most political contributions from Fannie and Freddie, by pure coincidence, just happened to be their biggest defenders: Chris Dodd (D-$133,900), John Kerry (D-$111,000) and Barack Obama (D-$105,189).

Representative Barney Frank, who has been a fierce defender of Fannie and Freddie, actually said, while arguing against more regulation, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.... " It's nice to know that he doesn't mind gambling with our money. Senator Chris Dodd, in praising Fannie and Freddie said, "I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time.
"While Senator Charles Schumer said, "And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission."

Barack Obama has received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other senator, with the exception of Senator Dodd, in the last four years. Before entering the senate, Obama filed a class-action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank was red-lining, or not doing enough lending in certain areas. That lawsuit was eventually settled. Arguably, Barack Obama helped cause the problem he now wants to fix.

The Federal Reserve Board was doing its part by throwing huge piles of cash at would-be home buyers by keeping interest rates too low. With low interest rates speculators began to look at houses as business opportunities, while others began to look at their homes as a giant piggy bank rather than a place where you actually lived and raised a family. Alan Greenspan encouraged this type of behavior and proudly said, "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgages..." President Bush, responding to September 11th unwisely encouraged us to "go shopping" rather than hunker down financially and contribute to the War on Terror in other ways (can you say home equity loans?).

The SEC also shares in the blame. It failed to do its job (failed to adequately regulate mortgage brokers, the credit rating companies, and naked short-sellers), acted only after the markets froze-up (finally addressed mark-to-market rules) and refused to examine how the credit-default-swap market could grow from $919 billion in 2001 to over $54 trillion by 2008 (which allowed companies to make wild financial bets with the false confidence that 'insurance' would be there if the deal went south).

So what happened? Home-ownership rates which had been relatively constant for 25 years began a 10 year upward climb beginning in 1995, around the same time that government began its push and pressure for banks to make more subprime loans. The politicians, banks, lenders and Wall Streeters were thrilled because they were all making gobs of money.

Today we are all paying the price for the decisions made long ago. I have spoken to people involved at the highest levels and they now are all saying the same thing, "it is worse than anyone knows" and "worse than I even thought." Political and business leaders who I respect have told me that the economy is on the edge of an abyss.

The bailout is an outrage and is designed only to buy time for the politicians. It will delay the real hard times from hitting until after the November elections. Not one politician has said that this bailout legislation will put us on a better financial footing or that our economic problems will be put behind us. In fact, we'll be worse off because our politicians, even in this crisis, can't stop themselves from spending. This bill includes an extension of the rum tax benefits for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands ($192 million), tax benefits for companies which manufacture wooden arrows for kids ($6 million), car racing tracks ($128 million), a provision which forces insurance companies to treat mental health problems like physical problems ($3.8 billion) and many, many more.

International markets don't offer any better alternative. Germany, England, the Netherlands, and Russia have all come out with their own government backed bailout plans. There are now calls for more international regulation (presumably led by the United Nations) and China has taken this opportunity to call for "a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States." Meanwhile, there is increasing international indications that the dollar will lose its place as the reserve currency of the world.

The politicians from both political parties continue to lie to us. They promise us better healthcare and more government programs. The only thing either party will be able to deliver is higher, much higher, taxes as the debt swells and government revenues fall. The same politicians remain silent, while capitalism, which brought us the highest standard of living in the world, is increasingly attacked and discredited by its enemies.

But it's not capitalism which has been discredited by our current crisis, it's greed that has been shown to be at the root of our present economic uncertainty, and greed is unfortunately a universal human trait and has demonstrated its reach in socialism, fascism, communism and capitalism. The greed of Wall Street is nothing compared to the greed of our politicians who have continued to expand their power and influence at the expense of their country.

Our children and grandchildren will ultimately pay the price for their failure to act prudently and in the best interest of our country because they will be the ones saddled with mountains of debt and diminished standard of living.

I hope that this summary gives you a better idea of how the people who caused this fire are the same ones who are now telling us that they know best how to put it out and a reason not to believe their current promises.

We have faced tough times before. We fought the Nazis in World War II, defeated communism in the Cold War and Americans fought each other to keep our country together in our own Civil War. These tough times require us to educate ourselves and help others understand what has brought us to this point and the grave consequences of what will happen if we let this continue-that is our fight.

In my next email letter I will answer the other question you asked, "what's coming?"

Sis, I know you will always consider me your crazy brother but please pass this message on to all of your friends.  There are too many rumors circulating and I want to put the facts out there. This isn't about slamming the Democrats or Republicans--this is about getting the truth out to as many people as possible.  The more people we can wake-up the more people we will have restoring the hope, promise and opportunity of our great country.  Please pass this on.
 
Glenn


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive