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.

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.

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.