Killing Osama

Barack Obama led with his strong suit this past week, not only taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden, but also claiming Mitt Romney would not have pursued Obama into Pakistan. He cited a speech in 2008 in which Romney said that we should not concentrate all of our resources into finding one man. Obama and his cohorts conveniently forgot the rest of the speech in which Romney called for a comprehensive anti-terrorist plan on all fronts…not just the bin Laden front. It is a bold move on the part of Obama…playing the bin Laden card so early in the game. He is also claiming degradation of Al Qaeda by his aggressive use of drones to kill other leaders of that terrible organization.

But to me, it appears like an act of desperation. He certainly has the right to crow about his accomplishments. There was the Bin Laden thing…and there was…there was…uh…didn’t he? No, that was something else. Then there was the…no, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. Oh ya…he saved General Motors…but then there was that car dealership thing and he screwed the bondholders….you know…the pension funds holding GM bonds.

The fact of the matter is that the killing of Osama Bin Laden makes Obama a one trick pony. Even then, the assumptions are wrong. The starting point is given the information he had, most of it rooted in George Bush, any president would have done the same thing. It would have been an impeachable offense if he hadn’t. The wonder is that it was so clear even Obama had to go through with it. It wasn’t courageous, it was expected. Would Romney have done it? Of course he would. It was Obama’s ability to do it that was in question.

Obama’s foreign policy is in shambles. We are the laughing stock of the world. Nuclear proliferation is on the upswing. Missiles are being built by Iran and North Korea that can reach Europe and the United States. Al Qaeda may not have a central figure to rally around, but the franchise has spread all over the radical Islamic world and another leader will rise most assuredly. Israel is a sitting duck as Obama pays lip service to Israel’s defense, but like he whispered to the Russian, tell Putin to wait until after the election and I can do what I want. Really? And all branches of our intelligence services are demoralized as Obama and Eric Holder try to prosecute agents for doing what they were told in the previous administratioon.  Shame on Obama and Holder.

I am not the most savvy politico running around, but it appears to me that you don’t take your best ammunition and waste it seven months before the election. It shouldn’t be a warning shot off the bow. It should be the main event. And Obama’s comments today that he just assumes people mean what they say makes him a target for every lie he has told since before the 2008 election, including his desire for higher electric and gasoline prices. Wait a minute…he did what he said what he was going to do.  I guess it was the truth.

Today’s Gallup Poll shows Romney up by a point at a time when the President should be ahead by at least 10. The public isn’t stupid. They know a cheap shot when they see it, and the "Romney wouldn’t go after Bin Laden" harrang makes Obama look petty and small and definitely won't play in Peoria. 

If he keeps it up, people may turn him off altogether. If only I could do that with Anderson Cooper and Wolfe Blitzer.

More Nuts than Us

In a recent New York Times op-ed piece entitled One for the Country  Thomas Friedman complained about the current state of affairs in the United States. He complained about broken escalators in his DC parking garage, the poor state of American roads, the not fast “fast” train between New York and Washington and dropped cell phone calls. He complained about lousy internet service. But after all of that, he shouted Obama’s praises, and then suggested that a better choice for President might be Michael Bloomberg of New York. Really?

Not really!!! Mr. Friedman then went on to say that as an independent candidate Bloomberg could possibly stimulate the debate and put the Republican and Democratic candidates on their best behavior. Apparently Mr. Friedman has higher opinion of Mr. Bloomberg and a lesser opinion about the United States than me. So it's time for the BS test.

Michael Bloomberg for President? Puh-leez!!! This guy is a dictator with a Napoleon complex on top of a food and cigarette fetish. I want government out of my life, not some idiot who wants to measure how many grains of salt I can put on my steak if I he “allows” me to eat steak.

As for Mr. Friedman’s problems with America, it is still the greatest country in the world. Let’s see…Europe has put together a system that has institutionalized unemployment approaching 50% for those under 35. It has one currency but no “unified” monetary or fiscal policy thus making Germans who work long and hard by genetics pay for Greeks, Spanish, and Italians who don’t…also by genetics. And the Irish are still paying for the Irish miracle…and so will the rest of Europe and us.

China is still rooted in central planning building malls with no stores and entire cities with no people, and doesn’t have the political mechanism to move the folks from the countryside which is still rampant with poverty to those empty malls and cities. Its economy is based on exports rather than internal growth…thus we and the rest of the world are dumped on as they continue to amass currency rapidly becoming worthless as the world’s printing presses print paper money 24/7.

Russia is corrupt to the core. And the Indians are all moving here as we still continue to welcome immigrants to our wonderful nation contrary to Mr. Friedman’s claim that we are anti-immigrant. Meanwhile, the Scandinavians are still trying to figure out what to do with a guy who killed over 70 people and seem stunned that there is evil in the world.

Spending on public works in this country has ALWAYS been a problem, but we did manage to tear down perfectly good buildings to build new schools all over the place, and allow government employees to go on some really nice trips to Vegas. And they are rebuilding the bridges everywhere. Just drive down I 680. If they only would repave Bella Vista and Shirley Road so I don’t break an axle, I would be a happy man.

No, Mr. Friedman, notwithstanding Obama, I think I will stay here because no matter how inept or nuts we are here, I have concluded it's worse everywhere else.  I know "more nuts than us" when I see it.

Obama, Romney, and the Angel Moroni

Mitt Romney is now the putative nominee for President of the Republican Party. It was a bitter primary leaving hard feelings among Republicans. Santorum has yet to endorse Romney even though he dropped out of the race. Notwithstanding, Romney is holding a slim two point lead among likely voters in the latest Fox News poll, with over 10% of the electorate still undecided. According to Dick Morris, the undecided vote will go to the challenger, and that means a solid victory for Romney in November.

However, and this is a big however, Romney has an Achilles heel. He is a Mormon, and thus far it has not been raised as an issue. But Obama and crew is a slimy bunch; and they play dirty. These are hard core folks with no conscience or morality. Their trumped up, non-existent “war on women” just blew up in their face as Hilary Rosen exposed their hypocrisy. George Stephanopoulos should be ashamed of himself acquiescing to Democrat operatives in asking about contraception in that infamous debate.

So what’s left? I pondered the dirtiest thing they could come up with, and my conclusion is religion. Republicans compare Romney to John Kennedy’s Catholicism. They are two different things. The press had concerns that Kennedy would cow tow to the Pope, but Catholicism is a main stream Christian religion with basic shared beliefs with mainstream Protestantism. Mormonism is different. Although it believes in Christ, the underpinnings of the religion are anything but mainstream, and I am concerned that it will give fodder to so called “non-affiliated” Obama operatives such as late night comedians, bloggers, and some of the whack jobs on MSNBC.  The mainstream media will willingly chime in.  These folks have no shame when it comes to Obama.

I did some reading on Mormonism. It is surrounded by allegations of racism. It has attempted to do after death baptisms of holocaust survivors. That obviously will not play well with the Jews notwithstanding Obama’s pathetic support for Israel. It believed in polygamy. It denies access to the interior of its temple to non Mormons. It has interesting rituals.

Then there is the theology. It does not believe in the Trinity as understood by mainline Catholics and Protestants, or original sin. It believes the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and that the New Jerusalem will be established in North America from which Christ will rule his kingdom on earth. Mormons are heavy duty evangelists. They don’t drink alcohol, tea or coffee. They don’t believe in hell, but rather in several levels of heaven. And that is just the beginning.

While I am not put off personally by a person’s religious beliefs, I have my own “ify” theology, there is no doubt in my mind that Mormonism is a great big target, and one that people with evil intent can exploit to suppress the Republican vote in the fall, namely among the Evangelicals. Obama is shrewd and the dirtiest politician I ever seen in my life. He can look into the camera and lie better than any president in my lifetime, and that includes Richard Nixon. This is just too big of a target for a person like Obama and his campaign to ignore. I can just see the skits on Saturday Night Live.

Even PBS will get into the act. They ran a multi-part history of Mormonism a year or so ago. Look for it to be run again this October. I can see vividly the black Mormon woman, previously banned from the church, looking into the camera giving her take on the religion: Some white guy finding golden tablets in a corn field in New York talking to some angel named Moroni. “Really?” she said.

Whether we like it or not, whether it is right or not, Mitt Romney and the Angel Moroni will rear its ugly head in this “year of the nasty’s” presidential election. Republicans and Mitt Romney need to be prepared. This is a down and dirty year.

Petrodollars and Gold

A friend of mine sent me a red meat Powerpoint slide show the other day.  It gave the history of the Petrodollar…or the dollars that used to buy Mideast oil.  It went off on a tangent becoming a very bad joke and off the wall.  Unfortunately, there was more truth to the joke than most would care to admit, as I had read several serious articles on the topic of Petrodollars over the past few weeks by coincidence. 

Up until recently, barrels of oil had to be traded in dollars.  But as of late, the European Union, China, Russia, and whomever, have been cutting separate deals with OPEC to purchase oil in other currencies.  China has been making noise that it wants its currency to become the currency of oil, and is making strides in attaining its goal.

What caused movement away from the dollar?  All that Quantitative Easing done by the Federal Reserve.  In laymen’s terms, the Fed started up the printing press and has flooded the market with dollars.  That devalues the dollar, and OPEC did not want to see its oil devalued along with the dollar.  The result has been higher oil prices.

That being said, for all of the noise of other nations, their currencies aren’t much better.  The Euro is in shambles, and the only reason it is valued higher than the dollar is because countries like France and Germany…the driving forces in the Euro Zone…pay about 4.0% on their ten year note as opposed to about 2% or less here in the states.  China does not allow its currency to “float”, or fluctuate, with other currencies tying it in part to the dollar.  But in its effort to jack up its currency to international standards, China has slowly begun to allow its currency to move apart from the dollar, albeit in baby steps.

So now we are faced with $4.00 gas and rising prices for everything that is transported in anything that moves.  Of course, the government simply tells us there is no inflation.  But there is inflation, and those of us who go to the grocery store or the gas pump know it.

At the center of this mess is energy.  Energy is the cornerstone of our economy.  America has endless supplies of energy, but Obama has pretty much squelched oil and coal, and now is on the road to squelch natural gas.  He doesn’t like fossil fuels.  He wants electricity.  He said he was going to let prices rise, and he has.  Wait until you see your electric bill beginning in about a year.

But there are other reasons for our problems besides environmental extremism.  Up until the early 1970’s, America was on the gold standard.  Our government guaranteed that each dollar bill was backed by gold or silver.  Then Richard Nixon decided, along with the rest of the economic powerhouses, to go off of the gold standard.   That meant the government could print money at will, unfettered by such miniscule concerns like is the money worth anything.

America was the biggest customer of OPEC oil, and the Arabs went bonkers.  They didn’t want worthless dollars.  They wanted dollars backed by gold.  In 1972, gold was worth about $53.00 /oz. and oil was selling for $3.55/barrel.  In other words, one ounce of gold bought about 16 barrels of oil. 

There has been a lot of unhappy history between now and then, much of it rooted in the Arab effort to keep the real value of its oil.  Dig beneath the surface, and you will find many of the problems we have had with the Arab world are due to these fluctuating currencies, and nations, particularly the United States, printing money.

Now…forty years later…gold is selling for $1660.00/oz and OPEC oil is selling for $103.00/barrel.  Do the math.  After all we have been through...one ounce of gold still buys 16 barrels of oil.

That is inflation.  And that ought to tell you something about why we have problems in America today.

Justice Kennedy's Health Care Issue

Perhaps the most hopeful thing coming from the Supreme Court arguments on the Affordable Health Care Act was found in a New York Times editorial this morning written by Adam Liptak (Appealing to Justice Kennedy's Idea of Liberty). In it he discussed Justice Kennedy's unique perspective of what liberty is. He  pointed to Kennedy votes upholding abortion, but also to votes to uphold restrictions on abortion. In other words, he looks for compromise and the middle ground.

At issue is the Individual Mandate. Mr Liptak pinpointed the central exchange in the entire three day hearing. The Solicitor General pointed out that liberty must include the ability to get affordable treatment for serious diseases. Justice Kennedy then stated that young people without insurance "uniquely" effect the price of insurance that everyone else has to pay. And the opponents to the Act stated what kind of liberty forces people to buy insurance then bans the very insurance they need the most...catastrophic insurance.

Therein lies the Achilles heel of the Affordable Health Care Act. In classic progressive overreach, Obama, Pelosi and friends decided everybody should have a Cadillac policy that covers everything. Birth control pills and abortions are the most visible and obvious culprit of this overreach; but there are lots of other expensive goodies that King Obama and Queen Sebelius have decided should be in there.

So in the heat of the final debate, have the players in the Supreme Court high drama stumbled upon the truth? If you want to drive down the cost of health care, then people need to pay the bills themselves. They will seek out the best and cheapest care. There is some point when that becomes impractical. That's when you need catastrophic insurance...a car accident, a serious illness like cancer.

It is catastrophic insurance that should be the center of the health care debate; not these budget busting government mandates that no one can afford. What is the minimum needed to achieve the stated objective making it attractive to those who have willingly opted out of the system to buy insurance? More importantly, it should be affordable and available to those squeezed out of the system....those in their mid 50's and over and those with pre-existing conditions. So here might be a possible framework to a solution:

1) Insurance companies should be required to provide catastrophic insurance covering illnesses whose expenses exceed $10,000.00 the first year, with a $3,000.00 deductible every year thereafter for the same illness. It should include prescriptions. The government can state what it covers and what it doesn't with the assumption this is a CATASTROPHIC policy only with a sufficiency test of reasonableness.

2) These policies shall be offered to anyone who wants them, with a health savings account attached to it if desired by the purchaser, who can contribute, tax free, up to $3,000.00/year to be used against future deductibles.

3) Subject to reasonable government regulation and approval, the insurance companies may set their own prices for these policies and may compete in the open market across state lines.

4) A payroll tax will be charged to all Americans, with an equal tax credit deducted against their income taxes if they have a health care policy equal to or better than the above mentioned catastrophic policies through their employer or through individual private purchase.

5) If an individual is not insured, the health care payroll tax is not deductible, and placed in a fund to which health care providers can make claims for treating those without insurance.

6) The government should provide tax incentives to stores like Wal Mart or Walgreens to operate fee for service clinics to handle mundane medical matters through nurse practitioners and provide these providers with substantial protection from malpractice claims.

7) Provisions should be made to expand Medicaid to cover those who are not otherwise covered and meet minimal financial requirements.

I believe that this type of approach maximizes incentives to buy insurance, taxes those who don't, provides alternate medical treatment centers to emergency rooms for routine medical matters, provides for savings for future expenses, balances those with pre-existing conditions against those young folks paying into the system but not using it much, and allows price competition in the market in the market place.

If anyone can figure out how I can get this to someone who counts, let me know.