Sarah Palin didn't cause the demise of candidate McCain, but she could have been a stronger spokesman.

In retrospect, Palin should have taken the following tact with CBS reporter Katie Couric in that pivotal interview that made Sarah look like a Klondike kook. In the following "Shoulda' Woulda' " interview, C stands for reporter Couric and P for candidate Palin. Here is how the interview should have gone:
____________________________________________________________________________________
C: What do you read?

P: Everything they put in front of me, but I have an affinity for Abraham Lincoln speeches and writings,  history in general and historical novels. But Katie, I don't recall you asking that of Joe [Biden]. In fact, until you deal with me and Joe equally and fairly and ask him what he reads, I refuse to have you or any of the media zero in on this or any other purely esoteric subject. For the benefits of our viewers, "esoteric subject' means a question designed for just me alone or understood by the specially initiated alone. How does that smack you?
C: I don't know how to respond.

P: Of course not. But until you ask Joe and get what he reads I refuse to be party to this, or to have you or other reporters zero in on me alone on this subject. Oh, I have a large library at home in Wassila, and I have read most of the books. It's known as the public library. Now that we're through with that, what books have you read, Katie?
C: No, this is an interview where I get to ask the questions.

P: No, it isn't. You've set me up, Katie, to look bad but I won't play your game. Until you ask all the candidates what they read--and that includes Senators Obama and Biden--you have no right asking me because it smacks of a direct attack by Katie Couric and CBS against my character, intellect, judgment, understanding, and capability to lead.
C: But what if I promise to ask this question of the others, is that good enough?

P:Yes, I'll take you at your word. But my answer is for you to go to my web site, SarahPalin.com. It has a long list of what I have read, am reading, and will read--together with the articles and essays I have written. Had you been better prepared, you wouldn't be wasting my time and that of our viewers with this.
C: I apologize, but I didn't . . .

P: Course not. You didn't prepare as well as a reporter should.
C: You're embarrassing me in front of the camera and all those people at home.

P: No, you knew full well what you were trying to do to me and my candidacy. Who put you up to this?
C: Why, no one. I prepared the question myself.

P: My writings are available on line, as are McCain's, so voters can read and see exactly how we feel on the issues. There is nothing hidden. Have you read all of Obama's writings?
C: Yes, I have. . .I stay on top. . .

P: No, you haven't. How about those that he wrote in college at Columbia and Harvard?
C: No, They're not available.

P: And why are his writings not available?
C: Obama has sealed them.

P: Why would he do that?
C: I don't know.

P: Do you think that is fair to the American public?
C: I don't know what to say.

P: Is it fair for a presidential candidate to hide his past, or any part thereof, his essays and other writings from the public?
C: No, it isn't, but . . .

P: (Being stern with direct eye-to-eye contact) Two things: This interview is over. You may reschedule when you receive these documents from the Obama campaign and make them available to all news outlets and to the Republican Party, John McCain, and myself--and I mean all of his writings from college, regardless of whether or not anyone believes they leave him in a bad light, plus a list of all the reports and books that he reads or has read. If he wrote it, we deserve to have it.
C: Okay, if you wish. . .

P: I not only wish, Katie, I demand! Let me be very clear bout this, Ms. Couric. I am dead serious about fair treatment in this campaign. And since you brought up the subject, I will hold you directly responsible for getting these documents from Obama, even if you must go on national TV and demand them. A terrible injustice is being perpetrated upon the American taxpayer and voter so long as Obama is not forthcoming. Please let him know how much in earnest we are in this demand.
C: I think this TV report will get his full attention, Governor Palin.

P: Senator Obama wrote a book called The Audacity of Hope. But the biggest audacity comes from Obama, himself, and from the Democratic campaign for asking the American voter to choose Obama, someone they don't fully know. For the record, the word "audacity" means arrogant disregard of normal restraints--like to defy your boss. In this case it means that Obama is terribly bold by trying to defy the voters--his prospective boss--when he fails to be upfront and produce his writings from college which must be quite something, wouldn't you say, Ms. Couric? What on earth do you think he's hiding?
C: I don't know.


Editor's note: An estimated 130 million Americans voted in the recent elections. Unfortunately, some 49 percent of those able to vote did not. Obama took 52% and McCain 48%, meaning Obama won by a 5 million plurality in the largest turnout of U.S. voters in history. That means 67.6 percent of the voters selected Obama without knowing all of his views. We can only surmise that part of it was hidden to purposely confuse and mislead the American electorate. This is damning evidence against Obama who--because of this intelligence gap which could involve national security--will become a somewhat mysterious President Obama on January 20th. It isn't American and it isn't fair not to know one of the candidates for president of the United States before the election. It is possible that the information Obama concealed was crucial to his victory and may become extremely damaging to our country if and when it is later revealed. Yet, Barak Obama is willing to let 300 million Americans pay the price he has foisted upon all of us--this ongoing lie about who he is, what he wants, what voices he will listen to, and which dogma and teachings will inform his day-to-day decisions and, ultimately, which views he will represent.

God help us!

Sarah Palin didn't cause the demise of the McCain candidacy, but she could have been a stronger spokesman.

In retrospect, Palin should have taken the following tact with CBS reporter Katie Couric in that pivotal interview that made Sarah look like a Klondike kook. In the following "Shoulda' Woulda' interview, C stands for reporter Couric and P for candidate Palin.
Here's how the interview should have gone:
___________________________________________________________________
C: What books do you read?
P: Everything they put in front of me, but I have a fond affinity for Abraham Lincoln speeches and writings, and history in general and historical novels.

But, Katie, I don't recall you asking that of Joe [Biden]. In fact, until you deal with me and Joe equally and fairly and ask him what he reads, I refuse to have you or any of the media zero in on this or any other purely esoteric subject. Your viewers may not remember the meaning of that term, "esoteric subject", so I'll define it. It means a question designed for just me alone or understood by the specially initiated alone. How does that smack you?
C: I don't know how to respond.
P: Course not. But until you ask Joe what he reads I refuse to be party to this , or to have you or other reporters zero in on me on this subject. Oh, I have a large library at home in Wassila. And I've read most of the books. It's known as the public library.
Now that we're through with that, what books have you read, Katie?
C: No, this is an interview where I ask the questions.
P: No, it isn't. You have set me up, Katie, to look bad but I won't play your game. Until you ask all the candidates what they read--and that includes Obama and Biden--you have no right asking me because it smacks of a direct attack by Katie Couric and CBS against my character, learning, understanding, and capability to lead.
C: But what if I promise to ask this quesiton of the others, is that good enough?
P: Yes, I'll take you at your word. But my answer is for you to go to my web site, SarahPalin.com. It has a long list of what I have read, am reading, and will read--together with the articles and essays I have written. Had you been better prepared, you wouldn't be wasting my time and that of our viewers with this.
C: I appolize, but I didn't. . .
P: Course not. You didn't prepare as well as a reporter should.
C: You're embarrassing me in front of the camera and all those people at home.
P: No, you knew full well what you were trying to do to me and my candidacy. Who put you up to this?
C: Why, no one. I prepared the question myself.
P: All of my writings are available on line, as are McCain's, so voters can read and see exactly how we feel on the issues. There is nothing hidden. Have you read all of Obama's writings?
C: Yes, I have. . . I stay on top . . .
P: No, you haven't. How about those that he wrote in college at Columbia and Harvard?
C: No, they are not available.
P: And why are his writings not available?
C: Obama has sealed them.
P: Why would he do that?
C: I don't know.
P: Do you think that's fair to the American public?
C: I don't know what to say.
P: Is it fair for a presidential candidate to hide his past, his essays and other writings from the voters?
C: No, it isn't, but . . .
P: (looking sterns with direct eye contact) Just two things. This interview is over. You may reschedule as soon as you receive these documents from the Obama campaign and make them available to all news outlets and to the Republican Party and to me and Mr. McCain--and I mean all of his writings from college, regardless of whether or not they leave him in a good light, plus a list of all of the books and reports that he reads or has read. If he wrote it, we deserve to have it.
C: Okay, if you wish. . .
P: I not only wish, Katie, I demand! Let me be very clear about this, Ms. Couric. I am dead serious about fair treatment in this campaign. And since you brought up the subject, I will hold you directly responsible for getting these documents from Obama, even if you must go on national TV and demand them. A terrible injustice is being perpetrated upon the American taxpayer and voter so long as Obama is not forthcoming. Please let him know how earnest we are regarding this demand.
C: I think this TV report will be enough to get his attention, Governor Palin.
P: Senator Obama wrote a book called The Audacity of Hope. But the biggest audacity comes from Obama, himself, and from the Democratic campaign for asking the American voter to choose Obama, someone they don't even know. For the benefit of viewers, the word audacity means arrogant disregard of normal restraints--like to defy your boss. In this case it means Obama was terribly bold when he defied the electorate--his prospective boss--when he fails to be upfront with his writings from college, which must be quite something, wouldn't you say? What on earth is he hiding?


Editors Note: An estimated 130 million Americans voted in the recent elections. Some 49% of those able to vote did not. Obama took 52% and McCain 48%, meaning Obama won by a 5 million plurality in the largest turnout of voters in the history of the U.S. That means 67.6 million Americans voted for Obama without really knowing his views. It isn't fair and it isn't American not to know your candidate before an election. Because of a mistake made by 67.6 million people, 300 million Americans will pay the price this man has foisted upon all of us--this ongoing lie about who he is, what he wants, and whose views he will represent. God help us all!

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

New York Times Readers Are Off Their Rockers

Lower Gas And Oil Prices
Means Oil State Instability

By Don White

In this time of financial meltdown, it is important to remember that job creation has a direct relationship to oil prices, as well as to capital availability. Now that the price of oil has dropped below $70 when it was almost $150 just three months ago, there is reason for Americans to again be optimistic. It takes oil prices like we have today to sustain many industries, two of which are the airline and auto industries. But it also applies to farming and virtually everything made in factories fueled by fosil fuel. And, don't forget, 40 percent of our fuel consumption in America is taken up in homes and businesses. Job creation is directly related to the price of a gallon of gasoline in the US.

The price of oil is at $74.25 a barrel, its closing price Monday in New York, It was at $147 as recently as three months ago.

Oil prices also affect what oil producing nations can afford to spend. Russia, China, Venezuela, and Iran have stepped up their spending, and job creation, based on faulty assumptions that oil may always stay at or around $147 per barrel. We are not saying now that the prices have dropped that any of the countries is facing immediate economic disaster or will abandon long-held political goals. And the price of oil, still double what was considered high just a few years ago, could always shoot back up.

Still, Russia, Iran and Venezuela have all based their spending on oil prices they thought were conservative but are now close to the market level. Significant further drops could tip the three countries into deficit spending or at least force them to choose among priorities. A worldwide recession, which many economists say is likely, would worsen matters, dampening energy demand and holding down prices.

It is not clear whether the new pressures could create opportunities for the United States to ease tensions, or whether the three countries’ leaders will rely more on angry words even if they cannot afford provocative actions. Mr. Chávez has continued his overtures to Russia. He, Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran may now see the United States, hobbled by financial crisis, as even more vulnerable.

Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., said oil states were facing something of a reckoning. Originally, he said, they saw the economic crisis as a problem mainly for the United States — but then oil prices went into free fall.

“Now, the producers are experiencing a reverse oil shock,” Mr. Yergin said. “As revenue went up, government spending went up and expectations of a continuing windfall led to greater and greater ambitions. Now they are finding how integrated they are into this globalized world.”

Chávez was almost euphoric last month when he announced that Venezuela would engage in naval exercises with the Russian Navy in the Caribbean. He could see some semblance of Venezuela's long-hoped for hegemony over the US. “Go ahead and squeal, Yanquis,” he said. “Russia’s naval fleet is welcome here.”

The moment, made possible in part by a flood of petrodollars used to buy Russian weaponry, must have been sweet for a man who has spent his presidency wagging his finger at the United States and railing against its capitalist model. Cozying up to Russia, whose leaders have been increasingly at odds with the United States, evoked cold war rivalries in the hemisphere.

Mr. Chávez has also used his oil money — in direct payments and through subsidized oil shipments — to win friends in the hemisphere and elsewhere, including President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who expelled the United States ambassador in La Paz last month, saying the envoy was involved in plotting a coup. There was actual fighting in Bolivia among government and opposition forces. So much so that the conservative Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had more than 100 missionaries in Bolivia, quickly moved them from harms way into Chile and Peru.

If you ever want a bell weather of how politically stable a country is, look to see if it has Mormon missionaries. If not, beware.

Domestic spending in Venezuela has also surged, through the creation of a wide array of social welfare programs that furthered Mr. Chávez’s goal of building a socialist-inspired state — and suppressed opposition. The 2009 budget, based on $60-a-barrel oil, includes a 23 percent increase in government spending, to $78.9 billion. Some of that amount accounted for new job creation and hopes for a better economy.

At $140 a barrel for oil, that was conservative. With prices now uncomfortably close to $60 a barrel, economists in Venezuela are expressing alarm over the government’s ability to pay its bills, including those for arms purchases.

Venezuelans are already struggling with an inflation rate of 36 percent, one of the highest in the world. Thanks to Bush's conservative agenda, inflation has been held to 2.36%--something we don't hear Democrats talk about but with which Republicans should take comfort. That's something Democrats and Republicans alike should be happy about along with the security we enjoy in America. For that, thank the Bush administration and its aggressive anti-terrorist campaign and the wars in the Middle East. With the Democrats in power, expect an errosion of that feeling of security, especially if Obama continues to court people like Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, Jeramiah Wright, and his commie buddies that he says he would feel comfortable calling to the White House for talks without preconditions. So far we have not had another 9/11, but Joe Biden predicts if Obama is elected within six months he will be confronted with a challenge of leadership, something Bush has mastered. A similar challenge of leadership is not predicted for John McCain because of his vast foreign policy experience. Foreign nations will be less apt to "test" the tough McCain than an inexperienced Obama.
Because of this, if Obama is elected look for unstable times, both foreign and domestic, and aggressive behavior by our adversaries that did not occur with Bush but are likely with Obama. Employment worldwide thrives in times other than those predicted for Obama.

Lower Gas And Oil Prices
Means Oil State Instability

By Don White

In this time of financial meltdown, it is important to remember that job creation has a direct relationship to oil prices, as well as to capital availability. Now that the price of oil has dropped below $70 when it was almost $150 just three months ago, there is reason for Americans to again be optimistic. It takes oil prices like we have today to sustain many industries, two of which are the airline and auto industries. But it also applies to farming and virtually everything made in factories fueled by fossil fuel. And, don't forget, 40 percent of our fuel consumption in America is consumed in homes and businesses. Job creation is directly related to the price of a gallon of gasoline in the US.

The price of oil is at $74.25 a barrel, its closing price Monday in New York, It was at $147 as recently as three months ago.

Oil prices also affect what oil producing nations can afford to spend. Russia, China, Venezuela, and Iran have stepped up their spending, and job creation, based on faulty assumptions that oil may always stay at or around $147 per barrel. We are not saying now that the prices have dropped that any of the countries is facing immediate economic disaster or will abandon long-held political goals. And the price of oil, still double what was considered high just a few years ago, could always shoot back up.

Still, Russia, Iran and Venezuela have all based their spending on oil prices they thought were conservative but are now close to the market level. Significant further drops could tip the three countries into deficit spending or at least force them to choose among priorities. A worldwide recession, which many economists say is likely, would worsen matters, dampening energy demand and holding down prices.

It is not clear whether the new pressures could create opportunities for the United States to ease tensions, or whether the three countries’ leaders will rely more on angry words even if they cannot afford provocative actions. Mr. Chávez has continued his overtures to Russia. He, Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran may now see the United States, hobbled by financial crisis, as even more vulnerable.

Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., said oil states were facing something of a reckoning. Originally, he said, they saw the economic crisis as a problem mainly for the United States — but then oil prices went into free fall.

“Now, the producers are experiencing a reverse oil shock,” Mr. Yergin said. “As revenue went up, government spending went up and expectations of a continuing windfall led to greater and greater ambitions. Now they are finding how integrated they are into this globalized world.”

Chávez was almost euphoric last month when he announced that Venezuela would engage in naval exercises with the Russian Navy in the Caribbean. He could see some semblance of Venezuela's long-hoped for hegemony over the US. “Go ahead and squeal, Yanquis,” he said. “Russia’s naval fleet is welcome here.”

The moment, made possible in part by a flood of petrodollars used to buy Russian weaponry, must have been sweet for a man who has spent his presidency wagging his finger at the United States and railing against its capitalist model. Cozying up to Russia, whose leaders have been increasingly at odds with the United States, evoked cold war rivalries in the hemisphere.

Mr. Chávez has also used his oil money — in direct payments and through subsidized oil shipments — to win friends in the hemisphere and elsewhere, including President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who expelled the United States ambassador in La Paz last month, saying the envoy was involved in plotting a coup. There was actual fighting in Bolivia among government and opposition forces. So much so that the conservative Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had more than 100 missionaries in Bolivia, quickly moved them from harms way into Chile and Peru.

If you ever want a bell weather of how politically stable a country is, look to see if it has Mormon missionaries. If not, beware.

Domestic spending in Venezuela has also surged, through the creation of a wide array of social welfare programs that furthered Mr. Chávez’s goal of building a socialist-inspired state — and suppressed opposition. The 2009 budget, based on $60-a-barrel oil, includes a 23 percent increase in government spending, to $78.9 billion. Some of that amount accounted for new job creation and hopes for a better economy.

At $140 a barrel for oil, that was conservative. With prices now uncomfortably close to $60 a barrel, economists in Venezuela are expressing alarm over the government’s ability to pay its bills, including those for arms purchases.

Venezuelans are already struggling with an inflation rate of 36 percent, one of the highest in the world. Thanks to Bush's conservative agenda, inflation has been held to 2.36%--something we don't hear Democrats talk about but with which Republicans should take comfort. That's something Democrats and Republicans alike should be happy about along with the security we enjoy in America. For that, thank the Bush administration and its aggressive anti-terrorist campaign and the wars in the Middle East. With the Democrats in power, expect an errosion of that feeling of security, especially if Obama continues to court people like Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, Jeramiah Wright, and his commie buddies that he says he would feel comfortable calling to the White House for talks without preconditions. So far we have not had another 9/11, but Joe Biden predicts if Obama is elected within six months he will be confronted with a challenge of leadership, something Bush has mastered. A similar challenge of leadership is not predicted for John McCain because of his vast foreign policy experience. Foreign nations will be less apt to "test" the tough McCain than an inexperienced Obama.
Because of this, if Obama is elected look for unstable times, both foreign and domestic, and aggressive behavior by our adversaries that did not occur with Bush but are likely with Obama. Employment worldwide thrives in times other than those predicted for Obama.

Get hold of Don and Carolyn White's successful new book,a must read for our economic times, "SELLING FAST: We Sold Our House in One Day And You Can Too."

In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a "secret smoker" and how he "went to great lengths to conceal the habit." But what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. Now we know where his communist ideas and sympathies began.

It's no secret that when news hit the wires that Russia had invaded Georgia, Obama’s first remark was, “both sides should show restraint.” He would go on to regret that tepid statement, but his real sentiments showed through as he would repeat it again while John McCain immediately, rightly and strongly, criticized Moscow for invading Georgia, demanding they leave.

McCain made a point of this apparent Obama slip or weakness in the first debate, stating Obama was too naïve, unprepared, and inexperienced about world affairs to be commander in chief.

Was he naïve? Obama observers said he merely misspoke. One such faux pass, yes, but two in the same week on the same subject and in the same words, no. I believe part of him, nine years to be exact, instructs his sympathetic behavior toward Russia, its invasion into sovereign Georgian territory, Vladimir Putin, and even communism.

This is also the reason he was so quick to tell the world he could comfortably meet without preconditions with the world’s worst dictators—they are generally communists and he feels a natural inclination toward them and would be confident around them because he shares most of their beliefs. When the American voter awakens to that fact, Obama's "smokin' " polling numbers will quickly fade. But is there enough time to get the word out?

Obama knows Russia is not a democracy—he said that in the last debate. He knows Russia is not the capitalistic country Vladimir Putin inherited from Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin after perestroika. As Putin nationalized oil and other industries and ruled with an iron hand, Russia reverted back to its former self, a repressive communistic dictatorship.

In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes. But his policies and thought patterns belie that Obama smoke screen.

However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a leader of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) in Hawaii. The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.

Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and blogger, in a posting of March 2007 noted evidence that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis. Obama's communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party nominee for the U.S. presidency. AIM recently disclosed that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a "Global Poverty Act" designed to send hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.

In Obama's own book, Dreams From My Father, he writes about "a poet named Frank," who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of "hard-earned knowledge" and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had "some modest notoriety once," was "a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago..." but was now "pushing eighty." He writes about "Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self" giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at age18. Dashiki is a colorful men's garment widely worn in West Africa that covers the top half of the body.

That’s a favorite Biblical statement. It's a truth that fits Barak Obama to a T.  Frank Davis taught him communism as a youth and what do you get more than 20 years later—a candidate for president who sides with the likes of Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, Raul Castro, Hu Jintao, and Kim Il-sung.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ taught him and Michelle how to hate America and Frank Davis taught him to love communism. Is it any wonder that Michelle made those gaffes some time after Obama’s started his presidential campaign. They were about it being the first time she really appreciated being an American? In typical fashion, Obama tried to excuse her by saying she meant her newfound pride was about the political system and was not meant to disparage her country. Barak, what kind of dried ganga leaf you been smokin'?

“What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said. But Michelle Obama is an experienced attorney and an expert public speaker. I doubt anyone believed that lame excuse. What they believed is that Michelle Obama was preconditioned to say such garbage because of Reverend Wright.

This "Frank" is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George

Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis's career, and notes, "In Davis's case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War I---even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership." Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.

One academic who travels in communist circles understands the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship. Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library of New York University. The remarks are posted online under the headline, "Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party."

Cliff Kincaid writes about a Daily Telegraph article by Toby Harnden on Communist Frank Marshall Davis, "a strong influence over a young Barack Obama for nine years of his life, rather than just four, and was a sex pervert and pothead. "Sexual Perversion and Rape and Davis’s alleged sexual perversion adds a dramatic and alarming element to the controversy.

Harnden, the Daily Telegraph's U.S. editor based in Washington D.C reports that Davis’s sexual proclivities were documented in a 1968 pornographic novel, written just two years before Davis became Obama’s mentor, which was titled, Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gourmet Gash).

It was in Chicago that Obama became a "community organizer" and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America (SDS) which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.

The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization.

Ayers was a member of the terrorist group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War. Come to think of it, Putin and Russia were against our war in Iraq, too. Still are. Coincidence?

America Lost The Cold War, Communism Won

Study the Communist Manifesto and see how America is almost there. The only thing we lack is Barak Obama who has promised to take us to that pastoral land of government power and handouts.

Our private enterprise system is under attack by Democrats. It has been called a system of greed by those who attack the machinery of capitalism, the liberal government, writers, movie stars, authors, and politicians.

The real instruments of greed are the politicians who take "slush fund" money, who "ear-mark" our money to their favorite charities, who do very little good while drawing their $170,000 per year salaries, who travel the world at your expense, and who have no limit to their ability to stay in power because of special interest group funding and no Congressional term limits.

Obama denies he's a Communist. But if he is elected president he has promised to bring his Communist ideals full circle, with government-paid cradle-to-grave education for all Americans, a liberal universal medical policy all paid for by the government, greater reverence for labor unions, and more centralization of communication and transport which will be taken over by the federal government.

That's just to name a few. Obama is very critical of profits made by titans of industry and lays the blame for the credit crunch at their feet instead at his own Democratic Party where it belongs. But he doesn't mind enriching himself through private deals with criminals, slush funds, and ear marks to his wife's company. She got a hefty pay raise once he threw his hat into the presidential ring. In return, he earmarked a million dollars to this company and promptly said there was no illegal undue favoritism, gravy, or graft involved.

Obama will do away with certain radio stations via the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" which will call for all conservative radio stations to donate "equal time" to liberal minds and voices, thus eliminating such conservative commentators as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Shawn Hanity, Bill O'Riley, and others.

You think things are bad now? Wait until after November 4th. In short, Obama will quickly move to control America's airwaves and stifle dissent. He will raise taxes on the "golden goose" that lays the egg of jobs in America, businesses. He will tax us to death, and I mean companies and people making more than $40,000.

Give no heed to what he says, look at his record because that is precisely what he has voted to do in the past. The condition of the economy will become far worse than it is today but his propaganda machine will further distort economic conditions so that he can declare another national "emergency" and jump in and confiscate private stockholder equity and make the State the only authorized participants in heretofore private enterprises.

Like many conservatives nationwide, I do not believe the current Wall Street meltdown should have been considered a national "emergency." The "sky was never falling in." Once you do that, panic envelops Congress--and it appears Obama and McCain are caught up in it, too--and lawmakers do strange things, things saner minds would never do. They pass a $700 Billion bailout that takes over the job of setting the economy right--it will never be right by throwing money at the problem--and they forget that in the natural course of events, our free enterprise system will not only survive but will do what government could never do.

The problem is that once you do this bail out you've got to do another and another. There will be no end to it until they have bankrupted the nation--and we are not far from that today.

Why so much fear? The economy is a self-righting mechanism. Sure, house prices are falling. Sure, many are "upside-down" in their mortgage payments and can't sell a house. And it's true that unemployment is on the rise. If we'd just let it alone for awhile things will right themselves without political intervention and the vote-buying mentality and meddling.

It's really too bad that this came right before an election, where half of Congress could lose their jobs. That's all they're worried about. They want to save face by saying they did something. But what about Hank Paulson--he's out of a job next year anyway? His panic was caused by just plain stupidity, and he's got Bush by the scruff of the neck worrying about his legacy.

Meanwhile, this "bailout" plays into the hands of those who want more government, more communist-like handling of affairs of state. Each time we do something stupid like this bailout, we move closer and closer to a socialist regime, and even nearer to communism.

It will happen, my friends. In fact, it is happening as the national presidential election polls trend toward Obama over McCain, the experienced candidate. It is a total shame that the young people of our nation who support this inexperienced, Communist-inspired man don't have a sense of history. Their other defect is their feeling of entitlement and their yearning to be on continual vacation from actual work.

Read the following 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto and then tell me I'm not right.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage. Read more at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto and
http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html Criminal Government.

Tax Exempt Terrorism--Islamist Infiltration
by Don White

Even the blind can see that Saudi-backed Islamists have gotten into U.S. charitable groups by masquerading as philanthropists. Anti-terror experts tell us that religious charities provide the perfect cover for their terror-supporting activities.

These Muslim groups not only enjoy tax-exempt status, but their reputations as charities and foundations often allow them to escape scrutiny making it easier to hide and move their funds to other groups and individuals who threaten national security.

This didn't just happen. Long ago Islamists came to America with the goal of undermining America via tax-free support for the machinery of terrorism. A document seized last decade in a raid of al-Arian's home bears that out. Translated from Arabic, "The Charter," as it is called, provides for an "Organization/Law Studies Section:" whose job it would be to study the legal aspects of establishing charitable organizations in America that would front for jhadi operations, investigators say.

Comingling of funds is rampant. The al-Arian founded Muslim charities that co-mingled funds with the Saudi-backed Safia group of charities in Virginia is a glaring example of this. Investigators say the charities have availed themselves of the advantage of exemption from federal income tax while abusing the requirements for tax-exempt status to avoid scrutiny of terror-tied financial transactions and associations.

The Saudis who hold all the oil cards in America also have more cash than most larger countries--certainly enough to influence more than one past president and current elected officials. The kingdom is the major source of funding for the terror support syndicate in America. When its leaders get in trouble, the Saudis are ready to provide legal aid and public relations assistance. They have a powerful friend in the Saudi ambassador in Washington--and it doesn't matter which year and which ambassador--that's one of their mandates. Some believe it only takes this man one phone call to make investigations go away. When will we learn the truth about this underground, jhadi plan to thwart legitimate goals of America and, in fact, to bring down our country.

When we finally learn more of the current U.S. bank meltdown, I predict we will find that it was, in fact, the kingdom that caused our soaring gas prices and world oil prices to rise to indecent levels. It will be shown that the king is working overtime to weaken us first financially--which he has accomplished--and at the same time undermine our ability to defend ourselves. It was only months ago that President Bush sold the Saudis $20 billion in sophisticated warplanes and related technical equipment. It is hard for me to believe that he isn't planning to use this against our most staunch ally, Israel.

Politics in the Middle East are difficult and complicated. On the outside, one should believe that the Saudis do not want to see Ahmadinejad and Iran build nuclear bombs. But if he thinks the U.S. is going to be strong enough to bomb Iran and participate in three wars (Iraq, Afghanstan, and Iran)--all at the same time--he is kidding himself.

This is something Iran is counting on and they revel in using our financial troubles and the oil embroglio to camouflage their bomb building activities. While Ahmadinejad was in New York, Barak Obama's national campaign finance chair Penny Pritzker feted this Mideast tyrant with a special reception and dinner usually reserved for friends and allies.

Such treachery from our own people! And were they trying to pry illegal political donations from him, which is typical Obama. There was a time that that would be grounds to jail such criminals.

What will it be like when Obama is running this country? He lies when he states he would have preconditions and preparation to any meetings with this little dictator from Iran. In fact, while Ahmadinejad was in New York this week, not only his own security guards kept him safe, but our own CIA operatives afforded him unusual protection usually given only to friendly representatives and certainly not to a man who wants to wipe from the face of the earth--presumably with nuclear bombs--our friend and ally Israel.

Iran has large Shite populations while Saudi Araba has a large Sunni population and as we discovered in Iraq, they hate each other. That, and that alone, is what the U.S. Administration is counting on to play off one faction against the other and avoid a major third world war. Are we putting too much credence in these offsetting situations?

The important thing to remember in foreign affairs is that you can't constantly court two enemies, or walk both sides of the street, and come out ahead. But that is precisely what the U.S. is doing when we help arm two arch enemies, the Saudis and Israel. But to fail to do so would create a vacuum and allow the Russians to replace us in this dangerous triangle and Vladimir Putin would like nothing better than to blackmail us with world oil supplies. If we think for one moment that because we are a free democratic nation--and each day Russia occupies Georgia is further proof that Russia is nothing more than a rogue nation of thugs--that we can rest on our "superpower pride" and holier-than-thou Christian idealogy, and on this triumphalist notion, forget it. We've defeated ourselves. Read more..at Angstblogger.blogspot.com

PoliticalDisconnect@blogspot.com

Posted by Don White at 9:22 AM 0 comments

One stormy morning, Obama leads by nine points in the polls. Here we are, 41 days from election and the tall guy starts sprinting down the track and opens up a 9 point lead over the short guy. How long can the young "empty suit" go this fast is anyone's guess. But unless something is done--and the debates start Friday--the old, stout guy is done. That, despite predictions to the contrary by other pollsters and experts.

I don't believe polls. I did enjoy a Washington Post story by Robert Samuelson this morning that said Paulson and Bernanke are rewriting the text books and running scared--"panic" was the operative word. "Paulson's Panic" was the headline.

I commented that what Americans need most at this time is a better understanding of the markets. Most people think this bailout is just to help the rich guys. Actually, it is meant to protect the people more than help the once rich and fat.

Think of the stock market as a mother. Mothers have kids and they nourish them until they can eat, walk, speak, and blunder on their own. Our markets are our mothers. They are the source of capital for all business in America, so they are the mothers or the source. If we don't help the moms out there will be no milk or cash for the kids, the many businesses that are capitalized will fail.

To capitalized means to issue stock that is sold on Wall Street that produces the money needed to move the trucks, pay the workers, and produce the goods--it's the money that gets main street and rural business going and makes them viable manufacturers, transporters, farmers, and everything else that qualifies for an American business.

There's a big bully called stupidity, greed, and bad judgment stalking our moms. They will go under if we don't help. Actually they have "Mom" in a strangle hold. She's ready to expire. If she does, there won't be any mother's milk or financial support for all the kids who have these businesses. If that happens, everyone goes to bed hungry at night because jobs dry up and there aren't paychecks or money to buy groceries; no money to buy gas or to pay for the heat and lights. That's called DEPRESSION.

Then government must jump in and create jobs--make work projects like they had in the great depression. My dad was only 24 years old and he had one of those jobs. He made a dollar a day building "a road to nowhere" and our family of five barely survived. No one wants that, so instead of waiting for the big GONG to sound in the sky or depression to hit, we help out Wall Street now instead of bailing out the public later. "Pay me now or pay me later?"

Here's what I wrote in the Washington Post "comment" slot today. Then I'll follow with a smart guy's comments. He explains stuff that may be over all our heads, except those who work in the markets. And I'm not sure how his comments help educate us to the point where we can decide if Congress should do a bailout or not. That's for you to decide. As you may know, Congress is stymied, almost in a state of rigor mortis. It's brain damaged and in permanent shock and awe and delay. Of course most of them were that way when they came to Washington, so what else is new?

http://dusanotes@yahoo.com (me): "For we the taxpayer, Washington should do something to educate us. Unfortunately, no one in government, the economists, or market gurus really know what's going on in this financial crisis, much less know how to solve it. I doubt Paulson, Bernanke, or any of the economists advising Congress know what to do and this is creating delay and panic in some quarters including the halls of Congress. No one wants to make a mistake that worsens the problem.

Is it really true that delay is bad for America? Along with others including McCain, initially I argued that the government should not bail out anyone. It is basically against the free enterprise notion that companies live and fail on their own. Then comes along Bernanke and Paulson who are running scared, telling us action today or the crisis will create a depression. What are these two--some kind of socialists? What--we own all the companies in America? I don't think so...

None of the above does the taxpayer understand, much less believe. Government should not expect support for it's programs without first telling the public what the **$$!! are the options. We're smart. We can figure things out. We just need some help re-explaining Free Enterprise 101 and how all this "hurry-up and bail-out " stuff is germaine to anything.
Don White
PoliticalDisconnect.blogspot.com

Here's the smart guy's comments:
Read Robert Samuelson's report in the Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Just as expected, Democrats want to load a lot of patronizing pork onto the Bush bill to bail out Wall Street and America's Banks.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson can resist the Democrats all he wants, but in the end this won't be a quick bailout. On Saturday he requested that it be "clean and quick." That is, the approval process. But Democrats don't know "clean and quick." Nothing is clean with the Dems.

They can see a lot of political hay and pork that needs harvesting with this bailout and they want their pound of flesh, contrary to the Administration that merely wants to solve the credit problem before main street business grinds to a halt and we have more Americans laid off. These businesses need bank loans to survive, and the banks need taxpayer help to survive. The people will also benefit by keeping their jobs. It's easy to see for all but the Democrats because they live in another world.

I'm an attorney and yesterday I gave the American public a legal opinion. In it I said the three-page proposed bill gives Secretary Paulson authority to set up an apparatus as he sees fit, operate the bailout as he sees fit--devoid of pork for this state and pork for that one, which is good--and to spend $700 billion dollars to get American business and jobs back on track.

Democrats have an uncanny way of twisting things. They want to sell this also as a direct bailout of ordinary people so they don't have to pay for the mortgage agreements they made. In other words, Dems would compound the problem that they created in the first place. That would really be something, wouldn't it?

But if the Democrats will just back off, that's exactly what Paulson will be empowered to do. He will solve the problem which is systemic. Democrats believe it is not a problem with the system. They don't have any idea of how the free enterprise system works. All they can see is windfall pork for them to pass around.

Paulson is going around to all the talk shows talking up the urgency that this proposal has. If it's not passed quickly, you can kiss goodbye to millions of jobs which are with employers who depend on banks for loans. But, hey, isn't that just what the Democrats want? They want more failure of the economy during the Bush administration so they can play the blame game and make people believe the Republicans caused it and don't know how to handle the problem.

See, Democrats envision a world much different than the average American. They feel that while we the taxpayers are bailing out the stupid mistakes of agreeing with Charlie Rangle and Barney Frank that America's better off half owed it to the poor to see to it that they could own a house (thus the bills they passed to lower loan standards), that there must be something in it for politicians. I pegged the blame yesterday on the liberal Democrats. The loose credit situation caused the financial crisis and those loose credit rules were the brainchild of those who spout all this racial inequality stuff (Democrats and their ilk). Somehow, they feel it their inalienable right to deny you of your money by higher taxes and to redistribute the wealth of many directly to the poor in this crisis.

The poor will benefit if the banks are bailed out. They will be able to get out from under their loans. Some may even end up owning the houses they bought, but at far better terms--but only if Democrats stand aside and leave Paulson to his work.

Paulson said Sunday that because financial markets remain under severe stress there is an urgent need for Congress to act quickly without adding other measures that could slow down passage.

Paulson said in an interview on ABC's "This Week that "We need this to be clean and to be quick,"

The secretary resisted suggestions being made by Democrats that the program be changed to include further direct relief for homeowners facing mortgage foreclosures and to include an additional $50 billion stimulus effort. Some Democrats have also suggested capping compensation of executives at firms who get the bailout help.

Paulson said he was concerned that debate over adding all of those proposals would slow the economy down, delaying the rescue effort that is so urgently needed to get financial markets moving again.

"The biggest help we can give the American people right now is to stabilize the financial system," Paulson said.

Then Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., weighed in, saying that he believed there would be changes to the three-page Paulson plan and that agreement could be reached quickly. The more changes, the longer the bill, the better for Democrats. They like it long and complicated, so no one understands it except the politicos. Then the Dems can work their magic and squeeze out of it patronage for them. That's what this Democrat delay game is all about, and nothing more. They're always thinking, what's in it for me?

Schumer said that he was pushing to get a provision where the government would receive stock warrants in return for the bailout relief and for creation of a government oversight board to supervise the huge operation, which under Paulson's plan would be run out of the Treasury Department. He said Paulson seemed receptive to changes when he had discussed his ideas with him. Maybe Schumer should read Title 5, section 3109. There are already provision for Congressional oversight. But it happens every three months. Americans would hate it if Democrats tied this thing up in controversy and hearings at every turn of events. Plain and simple, this is a bill to allow a highly qualified man to add money to the credit markets and to do it in an expeditious manner. Too many hands spoil the pie.

"I have told him ... we need changes related to housing, we need to put the taxpayer first ahead of bondholders, shareholders," Schumer said on "Fox News Sunday." This is typical Democrat talk. THE TAXPAYER IS FIRST INSTEAD OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, DUMMY.

Shareholders have lost their shirts, or hasn't Sen Schumer noticed? Taxpayers, all of us, are going to benefit if Bush's bill passes intact. We will not benefit if this thing is laboriously delayed and more and more companies go belly up due to Democrat haggling and delay. If that happens, a lot of Democrats may lose their jobs quickly--and I'm talking about November 6th.

Paulson said in the interviews that he had been talking to other governments about the need for them to offer similar relief because the current financial crisis is global.

"The credit markets are still very fragile right now and frozen," Paulson said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. "We need to deal with this and deal with it quickly."

The Treasury secretary said that the nation's outdated regulatory system for financial markets must be overhauled but the first job is to get the most sweeping rescue package since the Great Depression passed by Congress in coming days.

Paulson made the rounds of the television talk shows on Sunday to stress the need for speed in getting the bailout package approved. The administration was negotiating the details of the proposal with members of Congress with the expectation that it can be passed in the next week.

Paulson said that "it pains me tremendously to have the American taxpayer put in this position but it is better than the alternative."

Both Paulson and President Bush have argued that the alternative would be credit markets that remain frozen, meaning that businesses will fail because they can't get the loans they need to operate and the economy will grind to a halt because consumers won't be able to get loans to make the purchases that keep the economy moving forward.

On Saturday, Bush said the White House is ready to work with Congress to quickly enact legislation to allow the government to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars worth of bad debt linked to the collapse of the housing market.

Congressional aides and administration officials were working to fill in the details of the proposal.

Don White is a former AP Newsman and President/CEO of an insurance company. He has degrees in journalism and law, and is father of 4. He is editor of 13 blogs including:

PoliticalDisconnect.blogspot.com  and

AngstBlogger.blogspot.com

By
Don White

September 22, 2008
Washington--An AP headline and story today, taken alone, is innocuous enough. Writer Vladimir Isachenkov tells of how Russia is supplying arms to the militant Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a tit-for-tat show of strength countering America's food and supply lifts to beleaguered Georgia.
But there is a problem. The amount of military trade with this small country is far beyond that needed to defend itself, so what's up?

Only the threat of the U.S. intervention in South and Central America has checked Chavez's imperialistic designs and confined him to his borders. But sources inside Venezuela tell us he has greater aspirations. With big brother Vlad Putin on his side, he could see his dreams come true--and his sights are set on at least out-maneuvering and influencing, if not immediately attacking, countries like Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.

With Chavez-friendly Ecuador on one side of pro-American Columbia and his own country on the other, it would not be a difficult task to overcome Columbia even before the U.S. had time to react. If not Columbia first, it could attack Panama and take over the canal, allowing only tankers with Russian oil to pass.

We haven't done anything to oust Russia from Georgia, and Chavez counting on that to be a signal that the U.S. is too preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan to pose a threat to his imperialistic moves.

Russia has been providing Chavez arms since 2005 with $4 billion in fighter jets, helicopters, and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles to mount a war of aggression.

In addition, Hugo Chavez will travel to Russia later this week to enter into discussions on many subjects: First, how to keep America at bay; second, which weak Latin American nation now friendly to the the U.S. could Chavez attack and occupy? And third, he needs Putin's blessing to show him how he can use the oil card to change the balance of power in the Americas and further weaken America? Both he and Putin understand that oil is America's achilles heel.

A Russian navy squadron set off for Venezuela Monday, an official said, in a deployment of Russian military power to the Western Hemisphere. If this doesn't excite anyone else, he scares me. This move is unprecedented since the Cold War.

In his AP story today, Vladimir Isachenkov said the Kremlin recently has moved to intensify contacts with Venezuela, Cuba and other Latin American nations amid increasingly strained relations with Washington after last month's war between Russia and Georgia. During the Cold War, Latin America became an ideological battleground between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Russian navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said the nuclear-powered Peter the Great cruiser accompanied by three other ships sailed from the Northern Fleet's base of Severomorsk on Monday. The ships will cover about 15,000 nautical miles to conduct joint maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy, he told The Associated Press.

The deployment follows a week-long visit to Venezuela by a pair of Russian strategic bombers and comes as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — an unbridled critic of U.S. foreign policy who has close ties with Moscow — plans to visit Moscow this week. It will be Chavez's second trip to Russia in about two months.

The intensifying contacts with Venezuela appear to be a response to the U.S. dispatch of warships to deliver aid to Georgia which angered the Kremlin. But the Kremlin's chain needs rattling.

So. . .they are upset because the world, led by America, is up in arms about their recent takeover of a sovereign nation? They shouldn't be. If Russia expects to work well with the West it must never, never again attack and take over a sovereign nation. But we all know this is just the first step in an aggressive war plan Putin and Medvedev have put into action.

On August 13, 2008, just five days after the start of the Georgian War, I wrote a story about Putin in my blog Political Disconnect, satirizing his imperialistic ways. Part of the headline said: "I Can Haz Georgia?" Thereafter, he stayed in Georgia after attacking a much smaller, less well equipped nation and now, for all intents and purposes, he "Haz" Georgia as the West sits idly by doing almost nothing.

Chavez said in an interview with Russian television broadcast Sunday that Latin America needs a strong friendship with Russia to help reduce U.S. influence and keep peace in the region. "Keeping peace" is a code word for attack. That's exactly what Putin said he was doing when he went into Georgia--keeping peace between South Ossetia, a province of Georgia, and Georgia. But what business does he have keeping peace in Georgia? Next, he will want to "keep peace" in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Baltic states, European Union, NATO, and the U.S., beware!

In separate comments on his Sunday TV and radio program, Chavez joked that he will be making his international tour to Russia and other countries this week aboard the "super-bombers that Medvedev loaned me," a reference to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. "Gentlemen of the CIA, to be clear, I'm joking," Chavez said with a laugh.

No he isn't! Chavez has repeatedly warned that the U.S. Navy poses a threat to Venezuela.

Russia has signed weapons contracts worth more than $4 billion with Venezuela since 2005 to supply fighter jets, helicopters, and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. Chavez's government is in talks to buy Russian submarines, air defense systems and armored vehicles and more Sukhoi fighter jets.

Russian and Venezuelan leaders also have talked about boosting cooperation in the energy sphere to create what Chavez has called "a new strategic energy alliance."

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, who visited Venezuela last week, announced that five of Russia's biggest oil companies are looking to form a consortium to increase Latin American operations and to build a $6.5 billion refinery to process Venezuela's tar-like heavy crude. Such an investment could help Venezuela, the world's ninth-biggest oil producer, wean itself from the U.S. refineries on which it depends to process much of its crude.

Sechin warned the United States that it should not view Latin America as its own backyard. "It would be wrong to talk about one nation having exclusive rights to this zone," he said in an interview broadcast Sunday

The Financial Fish Weren't Biting Sunday
September 15, 2008
New York--We said it yesterday--no one should chase bad money with good.
That seemed to be the consensus of the financial markets over the weekend, as all the possible suitors for Lehman Brothers' $60 billion in tangled and messy real estate holdings dropped by the wayside, leaving the large 158-year-old international investment bank filing for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Two thousand New York employees cleaned out their desks and were gone. How do I interpret it? For America as a whole it's a good and logical end to only part of a very sad story, but it had to happen. Observers believe there will be 110 banks fail during the next nine months. Will yours be one of them?

The International Monetary Fund predicted earlier this year that total losses from the credit crisis could reach almost $1 trillion. So far, banks have only taken about $350 billion in losses.

Commercial banks are also starting to feel the pinch. Eleven have closed so far this year, including Pasadena, Calif.-based IndyMac Bank, which had $32 billion in assets and $19 billion in deposits. There is talk on the street that Wachovia and Washington Mutual are in deep trouble and now, understandably, they can't attract new accounts from a very worried public.

The problem with these firms isn't necessarily the firms themselves, but the loose supervision of banks by the Fed and other regulators. Some of them got into the practice of running what resemble kiting operations and the regulators looked the other way. Kiting is where you take from Peter to pay Paul and that's illegal.

Reserves are the problem. How much money should a bank have on hand to make a loan? That's decided by the regulators, so if you want to lay some blame on someone look at the regulators and Congress for failing to insist on tighter regs.

Maybe we, the people, should shake up Congress. Fire all the old ones and insist on new blood in Washington.That's basically what I'm going to do this fall--vote out the incumbents who have been there way too long. Look at Joe Biden with his 36 years, Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch with a like number of years. Even John McCain has been there 24 years and now he wants to be president.

From my vantage point, there is only one candidate who fits the "new" description and her name is Sarah Palin who is the vice presidential candidate on the John McCain ticket. She is currently attracting a lot of American attention and as a result has supercharged McCain's chances.

Back to the banks: Because they could, banks got into the habit of using money from current accounts, especially new ones, to fund questionable loans. Using this method of banking, someday when these banks couldn't get new business the domino effect was sure to occur. That "someday" is now.

The only advice I could offer the average American is to make sure your bank is Federally insured and that you have no more than $100,000 in each account--the amount the FDIC promises to repay if the bank goes under.

Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, a research firm, predicts that approximately 110 banks with $850 billion in assets could close by next July. That's out of 8,400 federally insured institutions, he said, which together hold $13 trillion in assets.

Bank of America Corp. is buying Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. in an $50 billion all-stock transaction.

The world's biggest insurer, American International Group, is also in trouble. It is restructuring, meaning it basically can't operate as it has in the past and must lay down greater reserves for a rainy day. AIG hit hard by deterioration in the credit markets, said Sunday it is reviewing its operations and discussing possible options with outside parties to improve its business after a week when its stock dropped 45 percent amid concerns about the company's financial underpinnings. It was working with New York Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo and a representative of the governor's office through the weekend to craft a solution that protects policyholders, according to Dinallo's spokesman David Neustadt.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Let Lehman Brothers Fail