Happy New Year

2009 is over.  Probably the worst year in my adult life since 1991.  That recession almost cause my business to go under.  Thank God that this one has not effected me as badly.

But, there are many out there that have been effected by this recession in any number of ways.  There are the unemployed which would do anything for a decent job, there are business owners that would do anything to just break even; and, there are homeowners that would like to be able to pay their mortgages.

So, as a result, I say Good Riddance to 2009.

Let's pray that 2010 is better and that it be God's will for the War on Terror to end.  I also pray that it is God's will that we take back Congress to stop the madness in Washington.

To all of my friends and family I wish that you all have a safe, healthy and prosperous New Year.

Denial of the Truth by Michael Cochrane

The term “denier” is frequently used as a criticism of those who refuse to believe an apparent self-evident truth or fact. I think it first came into vogue when it was applied to Islamists and ultra-right wing neo-Nazis who claimed that the Jewish holocaust of WWII was a fabrication. The evidence of history is clearly on the side of the truth claim that the genocidal extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime did, in fact, take place. But in recent years, the derisive term “denier” has been applied to anyone who is the least bit skeptical of the degree to which human activity is primarily responsible for global warming, or even if global warming is taking place. It’s disturbing to me that this would be the case, given that the body of evidence purporting to undergird the “truth” of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is still very much open to debate.

In fact, those who accuse AGW skeptics of being “global warming deniers” argue that the “debate is over”; that it is now time for radical action. What’s disturbing about this is that this is not how science is supposed to work. As an illustration, imagine there are 1000 reputable climate scientists in the world. If 600 of them are convinced of AGW and the remaining 400 are not, does that mean AGW is a fact? What if the ratio was 800 to 200? Does a so-called consensus have to be reached in order to arrive at scientific truth? Fortunately, science has never worked this way! If it had, we would still believe the earth was the center of the solar system and that all the matter in the universe had always existed (no big bang)! Very often, the most profound scientific revolutions come about because of the work of lone scientists working in fields sometimes outside of those in which the discovery is made (see the book by Thomas Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”).

Most of the time, the advancement of knowledge through the operation of the scientific method does not engender controversy. But the current state of global warming alarmism leads me to believe that science is being co-opted by political and social agendas. I will be blunt: I strongly believe that leftist, eco-socialists have been promoting AGW as a “hook” to advance a radical environmentalist agenda that is fundamentally anti-capitalist and anti-free market (it has to be man-made global warming or else their agenda doesn’t work). This agenda seeks to weaken industrialized nations, particularly the United States, and uses the manufactured world cataclysm of the hypothesized effects of global warming (rising sea levels, droughts, etc.) to shake down the “rich” nations and force the transfer of wealth directly to underdeveloped countries. That this is clearly a political and not a scientific issue is borne out by the fact that opinion on the existence and/or the severity of global warming (particularly AGW) is divided along political lines. Liberals in congress tend to support AGW and conservatives do not. It is also evident in the money trail: grants by governments to scientists to produce evidence of AGW.

The academic community is also clearly, and bitterly, divided over this issue. Here is an excerpt from an open letter by Dr. Petr Chylek, a leading climate scientist, to the top 100 climate scientists in the world (including Phil Jones, head of the East Anglian University Climate Research Unit whose emails were leaked to the world recently) in which he argues for a return to academic integrity in climate research:

“For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished.

It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort.

Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name a few. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.

… To blame the current warming on humans, there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history (the last few thousand years). This task is one of the main topics of the released CRU emails. Some people were so eager to prove this point that it became more important than scientific integrity.

The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. The

fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds, and ocean circulation?); even though we can all agree that part of the observed post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2

concentration. Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.

The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The

entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.

So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work.

Let us encourage students to think their own thoughts instead of forcing them to parrot the IPCC conclusions. Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide. Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public’s trust and move forward.”

It is very distressing to me that world leaders are so convinced of this so-called “truth” of AGW that they are willing to destabilize their own economies trying to “reverse” the effects of something that, to all intents and purposes, is a complete and total scam. Radical policy decisions will be made on the basis of a corrupted scientific process in which researchers of good faith are derided and ostracized for reaching conclusions at variance with the prevailing “correct” ones.

Hopefully, decades from now, we will look back and see that the real truth was that the world climate was never in danger of an apocalyptic rise in temperatures. What will more likely occur, however, will be a revisionist historical view that vindicates the draconian measures currently being taken by the industrialized world to reduce “pollutants” like CO2 as having “done the trick” in saving the world from global warming. If that is the case, science is doomed to be the slave of politics.

© 2009 by Michael Cochrane. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

No Toilet, No Blankets, No Luggage

Through no luck of the TSA another terrorist plot was thwarted on Christmas Day. Another lunatic Muslim Extremist attempted to blow himself up on an international flight from Europe to Detroit. The passengers of Northwest Flight #253, seeing what was happening, immediately jumped the suspect as he tried to ignite his explosive device. Apparently, it was just in time and 290 plus people are still alive.

And what does the TSA and Ms. Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, have to say about this? “The whole system worked.” Can you explain to me how the whole system worked when a man with PETN (a very strong explosive) strapped to his leg was able to board a US bound Northwest Flight; especially in light of the fact that he was on an international warning list as a terror suspect.

The system did not work. The system completely failed. President Obama finally admitted this today after being mysteriously absent on the golf course for the past four days. In fact, Obama’s quote that the system failed on multiple levels says it all. Because of the “systemic failure” a small group of passengers on the plane were forced to act and, as a result, saved everyone on it. This would have been the second terrorist act on American soil in the last few months. Do not forget Ft. Hood which definitely was an act of terror. Oh, and by the way, both the Northwest Bomber and the Ft. Hood killer were both in contact with the same radical Muslim Iman, Amwar al-Awlaki.

So what is the TSA’s response to this systemic failure? The immediate response was to stop passengers from: using overhead bins within one hour of landing; using the toilets within one hour of landing; and, using a blanket within one hour of landing. Give me a break. These are just more ridiculous rules. Just like removing shoes at x-ray machines after the last nut tried to blowup a plane. If this is the best she can do, Janet Napolitano should immediately resign as she is blatantly unqualified for her position. She should go back to the southwest and enjoy her retirement.

After Ms. Napolitano was strongly criticized by both the mainstream media and Fox News, reports are circulating that full body scanners are going to be used in more airports beginning with Chicago’s O’Hare. It is about time as these are the only types of scanners guaranteed to pick up the PETN that was strapped to the bomber’s leg. Although, I can promise you the ACLU will have something to say about them as they show a bit more of the female and male body than the individual being scanned may choose to expose. And, to be totally honest, the constitutionality of them may be an issue.

But, the scanners are not enough. It is time we stopped being politically correct and started racially profiling. I say we stop doing full body searches of little old ladies going to see their grandchildren. We stop bugging families traveling with children. We stop full body searching the obvious businessman on a short hop flight. We should be searching and searching and searching anyone that: a. has a one way ticket; b. is from a Middle Eastern country or background; and, c. is a Muslim from about 18 to 40 years of age: especially if they have been put on any type of suspected terrorist list.

These are the potential bombers. These are the people killing themselves in the name of Allah. These are the people that want to see the end of the United States of America. And, these are the people we are fighting. They will not stop until our way of life, which scares them, is gone from the face of the Earth. Remember, to them, this is Jihad.

I know people will call me racist because of this position. I know people will say I am being unfair to Muslims. But, I ask you, has there been one terrorist act against this country or other countries in the last ten years that was done by someone other than a Radical Muslim? No. All of the major attacks since 9/11 have been by Radical Muslims; whether it be 9/11, the Spanish train bombings, the Bali Bombings; the terrorist siege of Mumbai; the shooting at Ft. Hood; and, the two nut jobs that tried to blow up airplanes with explosives attached to their bodies.

Please do not tell me I am a racist. I am not. I love all people whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu. I just do not love people that are trying to destroy my country and my friends. As I and many others have said before, “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”

And, until it is proven otherwise, these are the people who should be profiled at airports, train stations, and border crossings. The harder we make for it them, the harder it will be for them to recruit. And, the harder it will be for them to succeed. This is who we are at war with whether President Obama wants to admit it or not.

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be freely granted upon request.

Interpol by Craig Covello

INTERPOL. Are you familiar with the name? We don't hear much in the news about INTEROL, aka the International Criminal Police Organization.. Sure, the name keeps some limited visibility in the movies, particularly when the story line involves diamond thieves, drugs or espionage. But other than that, INTERPOL does not get much attention, which is probably by design. In keeping with it's low profile, Obama quietly issued an executive order on December 16th giving this international police force complete secrecy regarding its files, including INTERPOL files kept on American citizens. Sound ominous? Perhaps. Read on.

Back in 1983, President Ronald Reagan did not agree with certain privacy protections found in the International Organizations Immunities Act. Specifically, he objected to sections 2(c), 3, 4, 5, and 6 which gave INTERPOL immunity from legal search and seizure laws as well as freedom from duty and taxation which would normally apply to foreign agents working within our boundaries.

Now Obama has reinstated these provisions, thereby giving INTERPOL more power and bulletproof (no pun intended) secrecy.

While I am not a lawyer, it nevertheless seems reasonable to assume that by removing language from President Reagan's 1983 executive order, INTERPOL is now allowed to operate on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI. INTERPOL is also now immune from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. This means that an INTERPOL branch in the US cannot be searched; its files are not subject to legal subpoena, nor discovery. By OBAMA’s signature, our government has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL. In their own words, "The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable."

Do we care? Well, here are some considerations:

1. If any politician, government employee or department of the federal government wants to keep documents out of the hands of the court system, it is conceivable that they can simply hand them over to INTERPOL under the guise of an international criminal investigation. INTERPOL is now outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

2. INTERPOL will now be able to collect and maintain secret files on US citizens on US soil.

3. It sets a legal precedent regarding nullification of U.S. sovereignty. Will this privilege of immunity be extended to other foreign organizations who may wish to set up shop in America?

There is also the question of "why"? What could possibly be Obama's motivation for changing the 1983 executive order and giving additional power to INTERPOL's U.S, operations? Perhaps it is in keeping with Obama's vision to make America subservient to other world powers, including the UN. Perhaps it is aligned with the recent climate control treaty in Copenhagen in which the concept of a world government is referenced. One thing is for sure; this action certainly reflects the style of this administration. Obama did not have to pass it by Congress, thereby avoiding that pesky system of government checks and balances.

The language in the International Organizations Immunities Act is somewhat tedious, but for those who want to wade through the legalese, here is the Reagan amendment followed by the Obama amendment. I have also included the language and my interpretation of the sections being reinstated. Please post your comments if I have any of this wrong, since there is no legal degree hanging in my office.

Reagan Amendment in 1983:

Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983

International Criminal Police Organizations

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

Ronald Reagan

The White House,

June 16, 1983.

Obama’s Amendment in 2009:

Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983

International Criminal Police Organizations

AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL

AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO

ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 16, 2009.

Text of Section 2(c), which has been reinstated:

“Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”

Section 2(d), which has been reinstated:

Insofar as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and the treatment of official communications, the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which the international organization shall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to foreign governments”.

Other sections that have been reinstated:

Section 3, which says that assets of alien INTERPOL agents are not subject to import duty taxes.

Section 4 which says that income of alien INTERPOL agents is not subject to federal taxation.

Section 5 which says that income of alien INTERPOL agents is not subject to Social Security withholding.

Section 6 which says that the assets of alien INTERPOL agents are not subject to property taxes.

Read it for yourself.

www.ipu.org/finance-e/PL79-291.pdf

© 2009 by Craig Covello.  Used by Permission.  All Right Reserved

Starwood's Response to My Blog

In response to my blog about Starwood Hotels and their lack of Christmas spirit, I received the following from their head of public relations.  Apparently, this is not the corporate policy of Starwood.  Although, I must state that I was told of this from an employee in a Southern Calfornia Starwood Hotel.  When I informed Mr. Minor of this, he told me that he would contact the Southern California Hotel and inform them of the true corporate policy.

STARWOOD HOTELS OFFICIAL RESPONSE

Frank: I enjoy your blog, but would like to share a point of clarification. As a Starwood employee I can tell you definitively that across our company we encourage each of our associates to be sensitive to and respectful of the holidays and traditions of our guests around the world.

There is not a corporate policy against associates at our hotels wishing guests a "Merry Christmas." We encourage our staff to make rich, personal connections with our guests and we would always encourage them to interact in a manner that fosters that relationship.

Best,
Brad Minor
Senior Manager, Public Relations

Merry Christmas

It is finally Christmas Day.  This is the day that we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  It is a day that we use to celebrate all of the good things in humanity.  It is a day that we pray that the bad things will all go away.  It is a day to celebrate with family and a day that every Christian child in the world waits for.

On this day, let us think about the military protecting our country both inside and outside the natural borders of our country.  Let us pray that they never have to go to war again.  Let us pray that God will keep them safe and return them home to their families so that they can celebrate next Christmas with their loved ones.

Let us also be thankful that those who are not Christian have the ability, in this great country, to pray to whatever God they believe in.  Let us pray that all religions will be able to live together in peace and harmony and that the current conflicts between the religions are resolved peacefully so that more do not have to die in God's name.

In closing, I wish all of you a Merry Christmas.  Enjoy your celebrations.

Twas the Night Before Christmas (Washington Style) by Ira Schwartz

Well, it's Christmas Eve and another year is almost over.  Today we Republicans got a small Christmas present:  Alabama Congressman Parker has switched parties and joined the GOP.  We also got a small slap in the face as the Senate finally passed their version of the Health Care Bill.  But now, is not really the time for politics.  It's Christmas.  So, with deepest apologies to Clement Moore and Dr. Seuss, here is Ira's version of the timeless classic:

Twas the Night Before Christmas (Washington Style)

by Ira Schwartz

Twas the night before Christmas and all through the hill,
not a creature was stirring it all was so still.

All the pagers and cell phones were charging with care,
No phone calls tonight, on Christmas Eve, who would dare.

The doors were all locked,
There was ne'ry a sound,
As I made my way back from the last of my rounds.

I slowly sat down with the loudest of sighs
And glanced out the window, it was snowing outside.

I turned on the TV to catch up on the news,
and in no time at all I started to snooze.

When all of a sudden I jumped up with a start,
my hands were all sweaty, beat, beat went my heart.

The place was all dark, nobody was there.
I puffed up my chest, there was nothing to fear.

Then out of the darkness came a hideous sound.
My knees started knocking as I looked all around.

It echoed and vibrated then bounced off the walls
till I wasn't sure where the sound came from at all.

The thumping grew louder and filled me with dread
as visions of politicians danced in my head.

There were Democrats, Republicans and a Liberal or two
When I saw Reid and Pelosi I knew I was through.

They slowly marched forward, I had no place to run
at that very moment I knew I was done.

I stood very still and watched as they passed
Then my knees buckled under and I feel back on my ass.

As I slowly stood up and reached for my chair,
I suddenly realized someone else standing there.

I thought it was Limbaugh or maybe Glenn Beck
Or maybe McCain just out for the trek

But he carried a sack like a thief in the night
his clothing covered in fur, mostly red and some white.

His face was all pudgy, his beard white as snow
his eyes bright as stars, they twinkled you know

He looked all around then walked up to the tree
and lowered his bulk to the ground on one knee.

Then he opened the bag and looked in with a smile.
Rolled up his sleeve and reached into the pile

and removed a wrapped gift neatly tied with a bow.
Then gently placed the bright box neath the tree down below.

Quickly he stood looking East, looking West.
Then gently he tapped the Santa pin on his chest.

"Beam me up Scotty" was all he did say
Then he winked quite smartly as he looked back my way.

A smile crossed his face as he picked up his sack
and disappeared in a flash as simply as that.

Confused and perplexed I stood from the chair
and walked cross the room to the present right there.

A smile filled my face as I giggled with glee
I read the small card, it had been made out to me.

I ripped off the wrapping and opened the box
what I found lying inside simply left me in shock

Only one thing lay there all yellowed with age
Only one thing lay there not two but one page

It was beautifully written a sight to behold
The first three words, "WE THE PEOPLE"
Standing proud and so bold.
I ran past the congress and flew past the Senate
past Nelson, past Lieberman, past McCain and past Bennet.

I threw open the door and ran into the night
and saw in the sky an incredible sight.

O'er the roof of the Capitol in the brisk winters night
hovered eight frisky reindeer and a sleigh ready for flight

It was trimmed with bright tinsel all gold, green and red
The jolly plump pilot tossed back his capped head.

"Go tell them inside what that paper does say
Make them remember these words won't go away"

"If you can do this", he continued to say
"Then tomorrow will truly be a most joyous day"

He turned back to his team, "Giddeyap" he did cry.
And those eight reindeer and sleigh shot into the sky.
As it soared on and on up out of sight
He said "Merry Christmas to all and with Freedom goodnight."

© 2009 by Ira Schwartz. All rights reserved. Used with permission

Avatar and Boycotts

Over the last weekend, I had the privilege of seeing “Avatar.” This is a film of epic proportions and although I had some problems with it cinematically, from a technological standpoint, I recommend that everyone should see it. However, do not go and see it if you are expecting a live action film or good acting. It is a combination of live action and animation and it should be viewed as such. Just expect the equivalent of a technologically advanced, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” I was disappointed because I was expecting a fully integrated live action film.

However, there is one thing about the movie that really upsets me. It is blatantly anti-military and less blatantly Anti-American. Without giving away too much of the plot, the bad guys in the movie are the United States Marines. Apparently, in the future, the world has become one big country that seems to be controlled by the United States. The United States Marines are sent to the planet of Pandora to destroy the opposition to the New World Order’s acquisition of its substitute for oil which just happens to be located on Pandora.

There are scientists assigned by the New World Order to Pandora to negotiate a peaceful solution, but they are overruled by the military and the business interests at every turn. Eventually, the military solution is the final solution. The military then attacks with pure hatred and determination the locals on the planet. They do not care for the sanctity of the alien life, whether it be women or children. And, they attack with sophisticated weapons against the bows and arrows of the natives.

The glee with which the American Marines participate in this massacre is appalling and does not show the true feelings and concerns of the real United States Military. James Cameron should apologize to the American Military and should make a statement that he does not truly feel this way about them. He should also apologize to the American public for painting our young men and women that defend this country as cold blooded killers.

However, I am sure the Mr. Cameron will not do this as the movie is obviously a political comment on Iraq and Afghanistan.

On another issue, all of my regular readers know that I am a firm believer in Free Speech. I believe that this aspect of the Bill of Rights is absolute. Neither the left nor the right should have any say in limiting it. I agree with the United States Supreme Court on the few limitations on Free Speech they have declared as there is an obvious reason for those few and rare limitations.

In the past few years, many department stores such as Target have decided that the use of the word Christmas should not be permitted in their stores. The new corporate policy is that it is the Holiday Season and these are Holiday sales. My brother wrote an article in this column a few weeks ago dealing with this very issue. I agree with my brother’s concerns.

However, it has just come to my attention that Starwood’s Hotels has now adopted the same policy. I have been informed that all of their employees have been told that they are not permitted to say Merry Christmas or to type Merry Christmas in e-mails. To me this is a clear violation of both Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. If a person wants to wish another person a Merry Christmas, they should be able to do so freely.

I have many Jewish friends. I wish them Happy Hanukah and many of them wish me a Merry Christmas. This is one of the Freedoms that are allowed in this country. If someone chooses to say “Happy Holidays,” that is also their own personal choice. But, when a company I am working for tells me that I cannot say “Merry Christmas,” this is going too far.

Accordingly, I am asking that all people should begin a boycott of Starwood Hotels. Everyone that reads this column should pass this on through their e-mail lists, their Facebook account, their My Space account and their Twitter Accounts. The American public was able to force Target and other department stores into changing their policy back to the way it used to be. Let’s see if we can get Starwood to change its policy as well.

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be freely granted upon request.

They Dye Has Been Cast by Ira Schwartz

"It's one of the great Bernie Madoff gimmicks that I've ever seen, that anybody's ever seen." said Senator John McCain on ABC’s “Good Morning America”. He was referring to the way Democrats were able to pass the Healthcare Bill. McCain continued, "This was behind closed doors. The Republicans were never brought in to the negotiations and this is what you get -- a split country -- where the American people are opposed to what we're doing and opposed to us."

According to the latest Gallop Poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124715/Majority-Americans-Not-Backing-Healthcare-Bill.aspx) 48% of Americans are against the present Healthcare reform legislation while 46% are for it. This clearly indicates how close the split in this country regarding this issue really is. However over 79% of us do agree that our legislature needs to be replaced. The congressional approval rating has dropped to a mere 21%. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123491/Approval-Congress-Falls-21-Driven-Democrats.aspx)

When asked how he thinks the late Senator Ted Kennedy would have felt he replied, "I think that Senator Kennedy would appreciate the outcome. I don't think he would appreciate it on a party-line vote. There has never been a major reform accomplished in the history of this country that wasn't bipartisan. ... He never engaged in this kind of unsavory process of offering people different deals, which in the end cost people from other states lots of money and puts burdens on them."

As I’m sure you all know by now the Senate voted to close debate on the bill by a 60-40 vote. The 60 votes consisted of 58 Democrats and two Independents. The Republicans stood firm with their 40 members against and most if not all were as disgusted as John McCain with the whole affair.

John Cornyn, Republican from Texas warned, "There will be a day of accounting. Perhaps the first day of accounting will be Election Day 2010."

"This process is not legislation. This process is corruption," said Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican from Oklahoma. "It is a shame that the only way we can pass this legislation is to buy votes."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called provisions inserted to change Nelson's vote a "kind of smelly proposition." "This is supposed to be all of our health care ... not just for them," he said at a Capitol Hill press conference.

The Democrats showed to the country and the world the worst part of American politics and the really sad part is they are happy with this display. Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and conservative Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska should be the most embarrassed for allowing themselves to be swayed by this back door diplomacy. But it’s not just Nelson’s and Lieberman that won concessions in closed-door negotiations, Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu managed to secure $300 million dollars in Medicaid funding for her state for her vote. This prompted Senator McCain to call Landrieu’s deal “The Louisiana Purchase”. Vermont, Florida and Massachusetts will also benefit from special treatment in how the federal government subsidizes state Medicaid programs. However Nelson and Lieberman’s cross over to the “Dark Side” were both very public ones and the fervor over it will not likely go away anytime soon. They have compromised their reputation and ideals and will likely pay the price in the next election.

Even though this proposed bill has passed the Senate it is still a long way from being ratified. The Senate bill and the House bill are two completely different animals. They will need to be merged into one bill that will satisfy both. That will not be an easy task as Republicans will continue to do whatever is necessary to slow the process down. Also the dissenting voices of the American people are getting louder and louder and that is making a lot of Democrats very nervous.

It appears the Democrats think they have everything under control and maybe they do but the American people are angry and the last thing you want to do is make the American people angry. The Republicans found that out in the last election as their majority was swept away. I guess in their haste to “change the world” the Democrats have forgotten that. It appears they have also forgotten they all serve at the “pleasure” of the American people. And quite frankly that “pleasure” is just about all used up. Monday night “American Movie Classics” ran one of my favorite all time movies, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” As I sat there and watched the movie for the umpteenth time I realized that politics really hasn’t changed since the 30’s when this movie was made. Truth be told it probably hasn’t changed since our “Founders” signed the Declaration of Independence. But that doesn’t make it right, it just accentuates our, the voters, complacency with how things get done.

It appears our present administration has become very skilled at; “buying votes”. Something I am sure has brought a lot of smiles to the Karzai government in Afghanistan.

© 2009 by Ira Schwartz. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Applause by Craig Covello

The Saturday before Christmas was a very good day. It was the day that my youngest son was flying home from the University of North Texas, where he studies jazz. We've been very proud of Cameron's academic career as an excellent musician playing both the stand up and electric bass. Even though he just started college as freshman, his knowledge of jazz history and his ability to interpret and play very complex jazz compositions is impressive. And on Saturday he was coming home for Christmas break.

My wife Karen and I climbed into the car with our 10-year-old dog Cooper. The dog is part of our family and the only "child" left in the house these days, so it seemed fitting that Cooper should be a part of the reunion with Cameron. We arrived at Sacramento International Airport about a half-hour early, which was perfect timing because we were treated to a local jazz combo playing inside the terminal. I guess this was the airport's way of saying Merry Christmas to passengers and their families. Karen waited by the escalators, anxiously hoping to see Cameron among the slow parade of holiday travelers making their way to baggage claim. Cooper and I stayed near the jazz combo and enjoyed the music. The combo, coincidentally, featured Cameron's former bass teacher who was pleased to hear that my son had decided to continue jazz at UNT. What a small world.

Then an interesting thing happened. About every two or three minutes there would be applause coming from somewhere near the escalators. Loud applause. So loud that it could be heard over the jazz combo. This cycle of applause must a continued for about 30 minutes. Finally, Karen walked over with a very tall, lean college student who resembled my son except for the scraggly beard. I gave Cameron a big hug, grabbed his bags and we proceeded to the parking garage. As we walked, my wife asked me if I'd heard the applause. "Yes", I said, "but I didn't see any performers near the escalators". She explained to me that the applause wasn't for the entertainers. It was an expression of gratitude for our military men and women who were coming home for Christmas.

A lot of thoughts raced through my head at that moment.

• This was the first time I had heard applause for the Armed Forces at the airport.

• It was sincere and unscripted.

• It represented a sense of patriotism and national pride which seemed contrary to the messages coming from Washington these days.

• It was a reality check.

If you have watched most major television network news since January, you would get the impression that the sun rises and sets on the Democratic Congress and the Obama White House. They appear to be the center of all conversation. Meanwhile, the military has been virtually ignored in favor of the domestic discussion. But here at Sacramento International Airport at Christmas, this was a slice of real life: A slice free from the spin of self-appointed social architects such as Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the chief architect, Barack Obama. It gave me hope that this unscripted public applause was perhaps a validation that the American patriotic spirit is continuing its renascence. Consider the juxtaposition of this outpouring of love and gratitude in stark contrast with the popular behavior in 1969. That was a year that people in uniform returning from Vietnam were being disrespected and spat upon by the radical left. The same radical left who have recently taken political control, Constitution be damned, and are now attempting to reinvent America and rewrite history. Their narcissism has led them to believe that only they have the intellectual understanding to comprehend what needs to be done, without bipartisan debate, without public input and without government transparency. To add insult to injury, they also have contempt for the military based upon their spoken and unspoken words as well as their passive-aggressive inaction.

Obama, however, may unwittingly have given us one of the best Christmas presents ever this holiday season: Patriotism. This radically liberal administration and its complacent congress have brought our free and blessed nation to the edge of the abyss in terms of our national security, our financial stability, our government ethics and our leadership among world nations. As a result, Americans have rekindled their passion for freedom. Americans have rediscovered the Constitution. It is no longer politically incorrect to publicly express patriotism. We have strengthened our belief that this is a good and just nation with a proud past, despite its blemishes and shortcomings. We understand that America is a world leader because of our love of democracy. We think it is okay to believe in God without forcing others to do the same. We don't believe that terrorists have the same legal rights as citizens and we don't believe that our brave solders should be put on trial for "punching" the enemy. We have renewed our resolve to take this country back in 2012 if not by 2010 in order to pursue the principles that founded this nation. Those principles include respect for those who give military service.

Queue the applause for our returning soldiers. Then watch this video and give a moment of silence in remembrance of those who won't be returning, ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoZ9Rc-W7Wk&feature=youtube_gdata

© 2009 by Craig Covello. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

What A Difference a Year Makes

It is pretty much the end of 2009. It is also the end of the first decade of the Millennium. Hard to believe that we’ve gone through ten years since the Y2K scare. Also, hard to believe we had three different presidents since the turn of the Millennium: One that was impeached, one that retired extremely unpopular and one that is becoming extremely unpopular.

Barak Hussein Obama has been president for 11 months. So, this year is his for all its good and bad. There is no doubt about that. When he became President, the entire world was energized. America had elected a new savior. He was young, energetic and promised hope and change. And, he is the first African American President in US history. All of the scars of the past had disappeared. Per the Progressives, we had become a true shining city on the hill. The Republican Party was in deep trouble.

Now, that we have had him as President for one year, nothing has changed and the hope is dimming by the minute. His first year in office has been notable for basically one thing: he has accomplished nothing. Gitmo is still operating. Health Care Reform may or may not happen. Cap and Trade is effectively dead (especially in light of Climategate). The Recession is still destroying the lives of millions of Americans. And, based upon yesterday’s latest report, here comes the inflation we have all been dreading. The President, for all intents and purposes, has been a failure.

Obama’s approval rating is at the lowest ever for a President in office for one year. That is a bad thing for the country, but a good thing for the Republican Party. When you factor in the approval rating of Congress or should I say its 68% percent disapproval rating; the universal dislike of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Chris Dodd; and, the insistence on passing a health care bill even though almost 70% of the country do not want it, things do not look too rosy for the Democratic Party in 2010.

In the past few days, it has become evident that Democratic Congressmen see the writing on the wall. They are beginning to announce their retirements. As of my last count, four have decided not to seek reelection. The most recent being a long term Congressman from Tennessee.

Will 2010 be a repeat of 1994? Or, will it be even worse for the Democratic Party than 1994? Who knows? I can just say for the record I would not want to be running for reelection as a member of any party right now; especially the Democrats.

The Tea Party movement which has been largely ignored by the main stream media and scoffed at by the Democratic leadership is currently polling higher than the mainstream Republican Party. On its face, this would appear to be bad for the Republicans. But, it may actually be good because the Tea Party movement is, for the most part, all Republican. So, unless they form their own party, these people will be voting Republican in November. Of course, if they do form their own party, as I have said in the past, it will represent the end of the conservative movement as we know it. The Democrats will have control for years to come.

A few days ago, I firmly believed that Congress would pass some sort of health care reform within the next 60 days. However, yesterday’s events may have made it less likely. Just when Harry Reid seemed to have reached a compromise to get his filibuster proof 60 votes, his own party began to splinter. Ex DNC Chairman Howard Dean went on the record as saying that the entire Senate Bill should be scratched because it has become spineless. Per Mr. Dean, without a public option there is nothing to discuss. If Dean is successful, whatever Reid was accomplishing in the Senate will dissipate quickly. Only then, will Health Care Reform have to become bipartisan for anything to happen. Abortion, Tort Reform and the Free Market for Health Insurance will have to be addressed. If Harry Reid and the President are smart about this, they may be able to pass Health Care Reform with Republican support, albeit the left wing of the Democratic Party will be left in the dust! Good riddance to them I say.

On another front, just this morning, Iran launched another test missile. In the past year, President Obama has done nothing to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Will the events of the past 24 hours change his attitude? Or, must the world rely completely on Israel to stop this threat? It seems that this is going to be the case. Facing extreme opposition from the left wing of his party, President Obama is not going to confront Iran in any way that will scare its leadership into submission. Our only hope is that Obama does not try to stop Israel from doing what is necessary.

By the way, I was at a dinner last week in which a very prevalent Congressman was speaking. Congressman Mark Kirk from Illinois, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the current Republican hopeful to take President Obama’s Illinois Senate seat, stated that one of the biggest blunders made by President Obama in foreign affairs was the removal of the missile shield from Poland. Appeasing the Russians here was a tragic strategic error. Kirk made it clear that the missile defense system in question was not just to protect NATO countries. Apparently Poland is a direct line between Iran and the United States. That missile defense system would be protecting the United States from an Iranian missile attack.

I could go on forever, but this is enough for one of my last columns of 2009. In concluding, this has not been a very good year for the country, its President and its Congress. However, I do not hear anyone saying right now that the Republican Party is dead and should be buried. In fact, all I hear is that the Republican Party is going to possibly take back Congress in 2010. Of course, if the economy turns around in the next nine months, 2010 could turn into a good year for Democrats again!

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be granted freely upon request.

Hanukkah by Ira Schwartz

In keeping with Ira's holiday spirit, the article for today is about the Jewish Holiday of Hanukkah.  He tells me there may be one more in this series.  Enjoy!

Hanukkah

by

Ira Schwartz

Hanukkah better known as the Festival of Lights, is a Jewish holiday that is celebrated for eight days and eight nights. It means “dedication” in Hebrew and starts on the 25th of Kislev on the Hebrew calendar (which is November-December on the Gregorian calendar).

Hanukkah or Chanukah is one of the few Jewish holidays not mentioned in the Jewish Bible. Its story is written in the books of the Maccabees and tells of a small band of Jewish fighters named Maccabee, who in 167 B.C.E liberated the Land of Israel from Greek King Antiochus IV who oppressed the Jews and defiled and looted the Holy Temple.

Once the Jews captured and rededicated the temple the Maccabees decided that Sukkot, the Jewish harvest festival, should be celebrated right away since they were unable to do so at its proper time. This they did on the 25th of the month of Kislev. They searched for oil to light the Menorah, which is a candelabrum used during Hanukkah, with eight candleholders in a row and a ninth candleholder set a little above the others. After an exhausted search they were able to find only enough oil to last for one day. This was a problem since Sukkot lasts for seven days. They lit the menorah anyway and miraculously, the oil lasted for eight days. Today Jews celebrate Hanukkah for eight days by lighting candles in a menorah every night, thus commemorating the eight-day miracle. It is customary to light the candles from left to right, with the newest candle being in the leftmost spot. This custom arose so that the candle for the first night would not always be lit before the others, which might be taken to symbolize that the first night was more important than the other nights of Hanukkah.

It is also customary to place the lit Menorah in a window so that passersby will see it and be reminded of the miracle of the Hanukkah oil. It is forbidden to use the light of the Menorah for any other purpose, for instance, to light the dinner table or to read by.

More Hanukkah traditions involve eating Latkes and playing with dreidels. The dreidel is a four-sided spinning top with a Hebrew letter inscribed on each side. In America the letters stand for "A Great Miracle Happened There". In Israel the letters mean "A Miracle Happened Here".

Each player receives a given number of coins or candy pieces called “gelt”. Before spinning the dreidel, each player puts a fixed proportion of the amount received into the "kupah" or kitty. Each player in turn spins the dreidel. When the dreidel falls, it will fall on one of the 4 letters. According to the letter, you will take all, take half, lose or get a pass. The dreidel game was popular during the rule of Antiochus before the Maccabees' revolt, a time when soldiers executed any Jews who were caught practicing their religion. When pious Jews gathered to study the Torah, they had the top ready in case they heard soldiers approaching. If the soldiers appeared, they would hide the holy scriptures and pretend to play with the dreidel. The word "dreidel" is derived from the German word "drehen", or "turn".

Latkes are a delicacy unto themselves. Essentially they are potato pancakes made from grated potatoes mixed with eggs, onions, and flour, then fried in vegetable oil. The texture is crispy on the outside and tender on the inside. They're served hot and often dipped in apple sauce or sour cream. The Maccabbee soldiers ate latkes made from cheese, vegetables, or fruits which were brought to them on the battlefields. However, they didn't eat potato latkes, since potatoes weren't available until the 16th century. Too bad potato latkes are the best.

One thing I failed to mention, and one of the reasons my daughter STILL loves Hanukkah today, is Jewish children get one present each night after the candles are lit. Not a bad deal. Happy Hanukkah everyone.

© 2009 by Ira Schwartz. Used with Permission. All rights reserved.

The Federal Reserve by Craig Covello

In order to understand economics, one must understand the role of the Federal Reserve in the system.  I have been telling people to read the book which is outlined below in order to get such an understanding.  However, for those of you that don't have the time to read it, here is a synopsis as done by our regular contributor Craig Covello.  This is a faily detailed and long article, but I really recommend you reading it in short doses if you must.  Only then, will you know the amount of trouble we are in right now.  Whether this it time to solve the mess, who knows?  Frank

The Federal Reserve

by

Craig Covello

There is an intriguing book called "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin. It explains the somewhat mysterious birth of the Federal Reserve and offers an almost apocalyptic prediction concerning its effect on our sovereignty. Whether you agree with Griffin's conclusions, some of the concepts are fascinating, if not plausible. I must admit I was little dizzy trying to comprehend some of the financial mechanisms at play. There were, however, some fundamental "truths" that we should all be aware of.

• Adding currency to the US economy devalues the dollar.

• Excessive financial leverage makes both corporations and individuals "servants" to whoever holds the purse strings.

A case can be made both of these activities are not in the public interest. Inflation and borrowing rob us of wealth and make us more dependent upon someone else. That's undeniable. Our current situation shows that the second activity is at work. Consumer debt, corporate debt and particularly federal and state debt are at all-time highs. That's a bad thing. If the other shoe drops and we have massive inflation, as many of the talking heads are predicting, then our savings accounts will be devalued and there will be less incentive for any savings discipline it all. Translation, we will all be living on the edge. So what happens if we fall off the edge? That's when whoever holds the purse strings steps in and redefines our lives. Literally. And depending upon who steps in, whether foreign or domestic, that redefinition may not be such a good thing. It then becomes a small leap of faith to believe that the government's attempt to rescue the economy through TARP and bailouts may actually work in reverse to cause a greater loss of wealth and a greater loss of freedom. Go figure. I believe it was George Bush that said we must temporarily abandon free-market principles in order to save the free-market. That's inspiring. And I believe it was Obama who campaigned on a promise to redistribute "the wealth". That encourages me to wake up at 6 a.m. every day and go to work. Here's the problem. Neither our past or current president understands free-market principles or the meaning of "wealth". Either we put this country on the right track by removing government imposed barriers to productivity or we will find ourselves severely limited in what we can accomplish because we will have no money and someone else will own us.

I encourage you to read the book or buy the CD. Until then, here are my summary notes which reflect a personal understanding, but not necessarily an endorsement, of Griffin's position. I look forward to any comments posted to this blog regarding your perspective.

Griffin's Premise

Appearances can sometimes be deceiving. The Federal Reserve is not what it appears to be. It is one of the greatest scams in all of history, and therefore should be abolished for the following reasons.

• It is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.

• It is a cartel operating against the public interest.

• It is the supreme instrument of Usury.

• It generates our most unfair tax.

• It encourages war.

• It destabilizes the economy.

• It is an instrument of totalitarianism.

History

The Federal Reserve System was conceived in November 1910 during a secret meeting on Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia. Jekyll Island was privately owned by a group of New York billionaires (by today's standards) as a winter resort for their own families. Senator Nelson Aldridge organized the meeting by inviting six other financial players. He instructed them to travel on his private railroad car from New Jersey to Brunswick Georgia incognito. They used alias names and staggered travel times so that no one would recognize them. The meeting on Jekyll Island lasted nine days. The guest list was limited to:

• Senator Nelson Aldridge, the Republican whip and chairman of the National Monetary Commission. This commission was formed by Congress to reform the banking system, which was being controlled by a very small group of banks on Wall Street known as "the Money Trust".

• Abraham Andrew, assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

• Frank Vanderlip, the president of the National City Bank of New York. This was the largest and most powerful bank in the country.

• Henry Davidson, the senior partner of the J.P. Morgan Company.

• Charles Norton, president of the First National Bank of New York.

• Benjamin Strong, head of JP Morgan's Bankers Trust Company. He became the first head of the Federal Reserve System.

• Paul Warburg, a German immigrant who was an expert in European banking systems. Among other duties, he was a representative of the Rothschild’s banking dynasty in England and France.

These seven men represented approximately 25% of the wealth of the entire world.

The result of this meeting was to create a congressional bill introducing the Federal Reserve System. The meeting was kept in secret since the stated intent of the bill was to break the grip of "the Money trust". If Congress had known that the bill had been crafted by the Money Trust group, it would never have passed. Prior to this point, America had surpassed Europe economically due to the concept of free-market principles and open competition. Although these seven individuals were fiercely competitive with each other, they joined forces in order to introduce European-style cartels and monopolies into the American economic system with the purpose of eliminating competition. For several years after the meeting, all participants denied that it ever took place. Eventually, details were made public by the newspapers.

Purpose

The Federal Reserve System is not a government entity. It is a banking cartel in partnership with the federal government. Both entities benefit from this partnership. It enables the government to "borrow" money from the Federal Reserve Bank without directly raising our taxes. In turn, this enables Congress to spend money far and beyond what it takes in taxes every year.

Ironically, this "borrowed" money does not really exist in any bank account. The transaction is functionally equivalent to printing money. The problem is compounded when the federal government issues checks based upon this "money" which ended up in the private sector. Since the private banking sector only needs to keep 10% on reserve, it can issue private banking loans up to 90%. The net result is a nine fold increase in money being introduced into the system. For example, the treasury borrows $100 from the Federal Reserve and gives it to Congress. Congress spends the $100 in the private sector. The banks take the hundred dollars as a deposit an issue $900 in loans as the money propagates through the system. Since this money is not backed by any tangible asset, the net result is inflation year after year.

The banking cartel, also known as the Federal Reserve, benefits from this partnership with the federal government as well. The Fed can generate loans using money that did not previously exist. It further allows the Fed a tremendous perpetual income stream by charging interest on the debt. The key point here is that as the money moves through the system, the purchasing power is diluted through inflation. Anyone who gets to spend the money first, has the benefit of the full purchasing power. Those who get the money further down the food chain, lose purchasing power. And who is at the head of the line? The federal government and the Federal Reserve get to spend the money first.

Hidden Taxes

The public is paying two additional forms of hidden "taxes"

• Inflation, which benefits the federal government.

• Interest, which benefits the Federal Reserve.

Central banks were created in Europe in the 16th century when royalty realized that they can only raise taxes to a certain point before there was a revolt by the taxpayers. This natural limit was around 40%. Using a central banking system, they were able to double revenues by collecting up to 80% of everything produced by their subjects using an additional hidden tax called inflation.

What's in a Name?

The "Federal Reserve Banking System" is a name invented by the cartel which is disingenuous.

• It is not a federal entity.

• There are no reserves.

• It really isn't a bank in the form of keeping deposits placed by the public.

• It isn't really a decentralized "system". Although there are 12 member banks, the power is still held by a cartel.

Unlimited Power

Some of the original provisions passed by Congress to limit the power of the Federal Reserve have been eroded over time. There have been over 100 amendments silently introduced over the years which have expanded the Federal Reserve's power. For example, the Federal Reserve has expanded its power to accept foreign debt in addition to domestic debt.

So what did we get with this bill that was passed into law in 1913 by President Wilson?

• We got a corporation, chartered by Congress, which was given an exclusive franchise to create the nation's money.

• We received a mechanism in which Congress can now raise unlimited amounts of taxes in the form of inflation.

• We have a mechanism where the banks can earn perpetual interest on "nothing" (money which is not backed by any tangible asset).

 The perception of the diffusion of power set up by the 12 regional banks is really an illusion. These regional banks are controlled by the national board, which has total veto authority over all the regional banks. The national board members are selected by the president of the United States. There is no decentralized power structure.

Regardless of who controls the central bank, the real problem is the legislated authority to create money out of nothing.

Track Record

We are told that the purpose of the Federal Reserve Board is to stabilize the economy. So how have they done over the last 80 years?

• Crash of 1921

• Crash of 1929

• Great Depression began in 1929 through 1939

• 1953 recession

• 1957 recession

• 1969 recession

• 1975 recession

• 1981 recession

• 1987 stock market Black Monday

• Today's corporate debt is soaring

• Today's personal debt is at an all-time high

• Today's business and personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high

• Today's banks and savings and loans have failed at the highest rate in our history

• Today's interest on the national debt consumes half of our taxes

• Heavy industry has been largely replaced by overseas competition

• We now have an international trade deficit for the first time in our history

• 75% of downtown Los Angeles and other large metropolitan areas are now owned by foreigners

• Half of our nation is officially in a state of recession (at the time of book authoring)

The reason why the Federal Reserve has failed to stabilize the economy, based upon the evidence above, is because stabilization of the economy is not its true objective. Its true objective is to enhance the profit margins of the members of the cartel and to stabilize the cartel's position in the marketplace by preventing competition. This premise is supported by papers found from the original meeting on Jekyll Island, which document the true objectives -

• To reverse the erosion of power experienced by the New York banks as the nation expanded westward

• To reverse the trend of private capital formation. This is defined as financing through the use of private savings accounts as opposed to borrowing money.

• To pass the inevitable losses of the banking system onto the public under the guise of protection of the people.

Based upon these objectives, the Federal Reserve was very successful.

• The giant international banks are still based in New York.

• Private individuals and corporations have been enticed to borrow instead of save due to artificially low interest rates which are introduced periodically by the Fed. This is a major reason for bankruptcies.

• Banking losses are passed on to the public in the form of government bailouts, which are given only to the largest banks. These bailouts are rationalized by the government as a way to keep companies solvent and to protect jobs. The real reason is to keep heavily leveraged companies artificially alive so that loans do not default and interest can continue to be collected.

Usury

For most of recorded history, "Usury" was defined as interest on the loan. It was redefined in modern times as "excessive" interest on the loan. It now requires a new definition of making interests on unearned money. Griffin contends that the Federal Reserve is similar to an "electrical short" in a generator. It is siphoning off money that could be used to increase productivity and everyone's standard of living. Griffin further contends that the unbelievable amount of wealth being siphoned into the cartel is then spent with the objective of acquiring power. This is evident by the influence exerted over all forms of media these days, including newspapers, television, motion pictures, labor unions, universities, churches and trade associations.

World Domination

Now it appears that the Federal Reserve has financed efforts of the International Monetary Fund Bank (the World Bank) in order to exert control over the governments of Third World nations. Very rarely does any of this money benefit the people of these Third World nations, but it greatly benefits the Third World politicians and government bureaucracy. The money is used to build totalitarian systems. In fact, these politicians are not really interested in ideology. It doesn't matter whether they are capitalist, socialist or communist systems. They're only interested in the money and how it benefits themselves as leaders of Third World nations.

Griffin further believes that the purchase of these Third World nations has been completed and now the plan is to dismantle the United States of America by creating such chaos and anarchy with our financial systems that Americans will welcome any stabilizing government, even if it is not our own.

Time is running out to Take Action to Reverse This Plan.

Griffin believes our only economic salvation at this point is to force Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve. We need an informed electorate that is paying attention to the voting records of Congress. If we continue down our current path, Griffin believes that a world government will eventually control the United States. He believes that world armies are being built, World Trade Organization's have been established and world taxing entities are being put in place. (Cap and trade comes to mind). The net result of this world order will be a loss of American freedom, including the right to speak freely, the right of association, the right of assembly, the right to vote and possibly the right to own property. Griffin believes that even though the hour is late, there is still enough time to reverse this plan.

______________________________________________________________________

If you were able to work your way through all of these notes, here is your reward. This is a three minute video which underscores some of the fundamental truths regarding excessive debt and spending. Daniel Hannan spells it out for the British prime minister concerning this very topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

"Nick Gillespie of Reason TV discusses the Federal Reserve with Judge Napolitano on Freedom Watch."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrpoLfg_Qfw&feature=channel

© 2009 by Craig Covello. Used with permission. All Rights Reserved.

Those were the Days by Ira Schwartz

I know I promised not to do this but in a way this is keeping with the holiday spirit….sort of. It deals with reflection, something that is an important thing to do every so often. I, like a fair amount of you, grew up in the late fifties and sixties. From our perspective at that age it seemed like a simpler more easy going time. We never really knew about the stress and anxiety our parents were going through, we were happy playing with our friends, reading books or watching TV, secure in the fact we always had a roof over our heads and food in our stomachs. For some of us TOO much food in our stomachs. It wasn’t till we got much older that some of us learned that even though the world appeared to be more secure and simpler it really wasn’t. Our parents, trying to protect us, shielded us from the everyday problems, the everyday stress and anxiety that is simply life. It’s a trap every generation growing up falls in to.

About 20 years ago I had a long talk with my Mom about it. She laughed and filled me in on what was really going on. Money was tight then too. My Dad was a Bridge and Tunnel Police Officer in NYC and it was just as dangerous for Cops then as it is now. Woman weren’t any safer either. My Mom told me whenever she would go out she always carried a sharp scissor in her purse just in case. Houses were cheaper but unaffordable for most just like today and most could not afford going out to dinner more than twice a month. Pornography was readily available if you knew where to look but not as accessible as it is now thanks to the internet. And kids disappeared back then too but reporters didn’t hound the grieving parents like they do today. Those were the days when the nightly news was just that “News” not entertainment. Where newscasters actually researched and wrote the stories they reported on and those stories lasted more than a 30 second sound bite.

Homosexuals were around but still in the closet and drug abuse and alcoholism were just as bad as today. People were out of work and homeless and cancer killed more people than any other disease; we just didn’t know it at the time. There was no air conditioning except in the movie theater and for me that in itself is a deal breaker. Growing up in New York, where the mercury in the summer danced around 98 degrees with 99% humidity, made me really, really, really appreciate AIR CONDITIONING. To this day I still feel we need to make the day air conditioning was invented a national holiday and its inventor given the Nobel Prize for anything.

Back then the family doctor was just that and house calls were common place. But medicine was still in the dark ages compared to today. If it wasn’t for today’s medical advances millions of people who are now alive wouldn’t be; me included.

And if all of you out there think Pelosi and Reid are bad we had a Republican Senator Name Joe McCarthey. During his reign of terror in the early 50’s thousands of lives were ruined by his unsubstantiated statements branding half of Hollywood as communists.

TV and movies were much more innocent and more unbelievable. And nobody but Robert Young and Hugh Beaumont ever wore a jacket and tie to dinner. “Swell” was the word of the decade and everyone was either clean shaven or just home from the beauty parlor. It was Hollywood’s fantasy world at its best but you know what? It worked. We all bought into it and some still do today. Those times weren’t any better or any worse, they were just different.

If we as adults and parents did our jobs right, our kids will fall into the same trap. Unfortunately their childhood was a lot shorter than ours. The change in the way news is presented on TV, the advent of computers, cell phones and the internet has forced our kids to grow up a bit quicker than our generation had to. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Only time will tell.

Each generation will have its “Good old Days” and that is as it should be but go back to those days……no thanks they are where they belong, in our hearts and in the past. That’s why they’re call the “Good OLD days”.

Woody Allen’s closing narrative in “Radio Days”.

“I never forgot that New Year's Eve when Aunt Bea awakened me to watch 1944 come in. I've never forgotten any of those people or any of the voices we would hear on the radio. Though the truth is, with the passing of each New Year's Eve, those voices do seem to grow dimmer and dimmer.”

© 2009 by Ira Schwartz. Used with permission. All Rights Reserved

Global Rule One Has Cost Actors Jobs

As we all know, the American economy is currently battling double digit unemployment. The current unemployment rate is 10% and most major economists believe it will go higher. The Screen Actor’s Guild which has over 100,000 members would love to see an unemployment rate that low. On any average day, their unemployment rate is probably over 80%.

Of course, you can argue that many members of the guild should not even be actors and that is why they are unemployed. You can also argue there is not enough demand for 100,000 actors and a large percentage will always be unemployed. Both of these are somewhat true. However, if the Screen Actor’s Guild (‘SAG’) made life easier for the producer and its own members, many more actors would have steadier employment; especially the ones that can actually act.

SAG has jurisdiction against producers only within the boundaries of the USA. They are not recognized outside of the United States and hence have no controls. Many other countries such as the UK, Canada and Australia have their own actor’s unions which are considered sister unions of SAG. Because of this lack of jurisdiction, SAG cannot force producers to shoot movies outside the USA under its collective bargaining agreement.

However, there is a clause in the SAG agreement that every actor becomes obligated to when he/she becomes a member of the union. That clause states in substance that “by joining the union, I agree not to work as an actor on a film or television show that does not agree to abide by the SAG collective bargaining agreement.” This is SAG Rule One and its enforcement overseas is now known as Global Rule One.

Prior to the turn of the Century, SAG never enforced Rule One outside of the USA. An American or foreign producer was free to hire SAG actors to shoot a film in Eastern Europe or anywhere else, and did not have to conform to the SAG collective bargaining agreement which, as you know from a prior article written by me, is a nightmare to an independent producer.

The stature of the actor was not an issue. You could hire an “A” list movie star or a scale character actor and hire them for whatever rate the actor was willing to work for. Plus, you could fly an actor coach, pay them a smaller per diem and not be forced to conform to SAG’s rules regarding turnarounds and meal penalties. Hence, it was a free market to both the producer and the actor outside of the United States. As a result, American actors were hired all the time to work on overseas productions regardless of the country of origin of the project.

In approximately 2002, SAG decided it was going to enforce Rule One everywhere in the world. SAG told its members that if they worked non-union outside of the United States, they would be subject to discipline by the union whether they made one million dollars or one dollar on a film.

The rationale SAG gave its members for this change in policy was it would increase SAG employment and help actors qualify for the health plan by allowing them to make the minimum amount of dollars necessary for qualification in the plan. The “evil” producers were taking advantage of helpless actors, and forced them to work long hours on non-union overseas productions. They were not paying contributions to the health plan. SAG and its members would benefit from this new policy.

What has happened is exactly the opposite. SAG members are not being employed overseas unless they are the one or two actors that help finance the movie: i.e. the stars. The rest of the actors are coming from other countries so that the acting fees come within the boundaries of the budget. The bottom line being that SAG costs the producer more money and sometimes, especially in current economic times, the producer cannot afford the extra cost.

For example, the SAG agreement states that on all overseas production, the actor must be flown First Class. To Europe that can amount to as much as $15,000. The same price is true for Asia give or take. A business class ticket runs about $5,000 and a coach class ticket can be as low as $1,000 depending upon the time of year.

If you are a producer of a film shooting in Eastern Europe and you have a part for an actor that works two weeks, are you going to hire a SAG actor at $2,900 per week plus overtime (SAG minimum) if the airfare to get that actor to the location is more than $10,000? Of course not. You may bite the bullet for the SAG actor if the airfare is $1,000.00, but not for almost twice the acting fee.

So, what does the cost conscious and proper producer do? He hires a British or local actor for the same amount or sometimes even a slightly higher fee because the overall cost is less. The quality does not suffer, but the employment of SAG actors does.

The amount of English speaking films that shoot outside the United States is probably twice that of those that shoot in the United States. Each of these films has approximately 10-20 speaking roles that would go to SAG actors if SAG would stop enforcing Rule One. Instead SAG actors are not being hired and their employment rates stay low.

Does this make sense? No. Does anything the Entertainment Unions do make sense, no. Do these unions care about their members or their employment? Sometimes, I wonder.

I realize this article is not something that fits the usual tone of this column. However since I do make a living as a Hollywood producer, occasionally I will write about my industry. This is the first of such articles. I hope you enjoy them as they will be told with my usual political leanings in mind.

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini.