Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Friday, July 6, 2012

Why The Euro Will Fail

The Euro Is a Frankenstein Currency

What do Dr. Victor Frankenstein and the architects of the euro currency have in common? Answer: They both created monsters.
The euro is not “money” any more than the monster created by Dr. Frankenstein was a man. Whatever resemblances there may be to the genuine article are merely superficial. Nor is government needed to create money, any more than government is needed to create another human being. These things happen naturally.
In the case of money, it develops in the marketplace in response to the need for a medium of exchange for economic goods. Prices are ratios that communicate the degree to which individuals value the marginal unit of the finite supply of economic goods.
Historically, societies around the world frequently found gold and silver to be the most suitable commodities to serve as money. Why? First, people value gold and silver whether they are used as a medium of exchange or not. Second, those metals have the natural advantages of being durable, divisible and portable. Third, it is easy to standardize the quality of each unit.
A government’s perpetual tendency to amass more power impels government leaders to establish a monopoly over money. To facilitate increases in government spending, sovereign powers replace genuine money with fiat money—that is, paper money or, in the digital age, unseen binary data bytes. In doing so, governments and their central banks divorce money from its organic origin as the most marketable commodity in a society.
Commodity money is like a giant oak tree, firmly rooted in the soil of everyday voluntary economic choices. It is an organic, natural part of the economic ecosystem. When governments remove the commodity backing from money, people may continue to use it as a medium of exchange out of habit. Usually, though, legal tender laws compel them to keep using the fiat currency as their “money.” On the surface, everything initially appears as it did before. Beneath the surface, however, the metaphorical oak tree that symbolized money has been separated from its roots. From the time real money is replaced by its fiat counterfeit, it starts to die from within. Eventually it collapses under the stress of some financial or political storm.
The euro is more abominable and more dangerous than your typical fiat currency. Today’s Federal Reserve note (i.e., a “dollar”) is like a giant oak tree that has become a hollow shell. Most of its substance has been eaten away by the inflationary creation of far too many units of fiat currency (all needed to finance government’s insatiable appetite for spending). It still manages to stand, to serve in its weakened and brittle state as the medium of exchange, because it still has the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government supporting it.
But as pathetic as Federal Reserve notes are, the euro is even worse, because there is no entity whose “full faith and credit” lies behind the euro currency. Each more hopelessly indebted than the other, 17 countries use the euro. Which of their governments can command sufficient economic resources to bail out zombie banks and bankrupt sovereign treasuries?
Returning to the tree metaphor, the euro was grafted together from pieces of 17 (so far) dying fiat currency trees of different species. The euro has had no roots from day one. It did not evolve naturally from market forces. Its trunk was stitched together from pieces of the deutsche mark, French franc and Italian lira fiat currencies, with its main branches from the peseta, the punt, the Dutch guilder and its minor branches from remnants of the fiat currencies of smaller economies, such as the Greek drachma and Portuguese escudo. The sutures that stitched together those decaying fiat currencies consisted of nothing more substantial than lies and empty promises. These were solemn pledges that debts and deficits would never, ever reach levels that were long ago exceeded. The experts who devised the euro currency were naive to have believed that democratic politicians would have the honor or capacity to maintain fiscal discipline.
The euro is a monstrosity doomed to be rent asunder by economic gale-force winds. Like characters in Jean-Paul Sartre’s grim play, “No Exit,” the people who use the euro currency are trapped. Either member countries will abandon the euro, in which case banks, governments, businesses and individuals go through a wrenching period of defaults, write-downs, “haircuts” and bankruptcies, or they lurch onward toward an unviable fiscal union in which Germany, Finland and the few relatively solvent economies are crushed under the unsupportable weight of being expected to bail out the relatively bankrupt countries.
How much longer can the macabre dance of the EU’s Frankenstein currency last? Europeans are paying an awful price for having adopted a Frankenstein currency instead of the real thing.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Are You A FOO?

When you look at niche groups, in this case marijuana users, Obama supporters are quickly coming to understand, that he is no where to be found. This group, like Hispanics, gays, democrats and any other disaffected group that he could put together, soon find out that the President makes great speeches (actually some are soaring, if his friend the teleprompter is present) but the substance, the follow through is missing.  He talks a lot but gets little done. Kinda sounds like a community organizer! He talks and let others do the work.

In Detroit, our last mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, also gave enthralling speeches. Most Detroiters loved him. He was known as the "hip-hop mayor."  Trouble is that he never did anything positive for the city. All of his work was to fill up his and his friends pockets with money from the city coffers all the while carrying on an affair with his Chief of Staff.  He left a declining city in significantly worse shape.

We see similarities with Obama. To name a couple, we see Solyndra and other "green companies" who ultimately failed getting money from the government and then we find out that most of the owners are friends of Obama (FOOs).  The unions won big in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, they are FOOs. The banks get  special deals from the Fed and Obama and their Presidents and CEOs are protected from prosecution because they are FOOs.  Do you see a pattern here?

However, marijuana users are not FOOs so they get nothing but rhetoric.  It is also true for the middle class.  They cannot enrich the President or his minions, so they get nothing. He operates from the standpoint "what have you done for me lately?" regardless of what he says on the stump.

Speeches don't necessarily relate to accomplishments. Getting things done takes work, something that Obama (or Kwame) has never had to do in his life. People have greased his track from the time he was born. He has never had to really put in a hard days work. Don't expect that he will ever do anything but the very easiest, least taxing (in work, not money), least controversial actions possible. He is not there to advance anything but himself and his friends.

So unless you are a FOO, expect to have smoke blown up your posterior and realize he will not do anything for you, in the end. 

Conservative Tom

Obama's Secret Weapon: Voters Too Stupid to Realize His Drug Policies Suck
Writing at The Atlantic Wire, Elspeth Reeve suggests that marijuana reform measures on several state ballots this fall could help Barack Obama win re-election by drawing young voters to the polls. If that happens, the headline says, "legalizing weed" could be "Obama's secret weapon." Well, not so secret anymore, now that people are writing about it. In any case, Reeve warns, "past attempts to bong the vote have been disappointing, in part because stoners aren't the group anyone would most count on to bother filling out a ballot." Ha ha! It's funny because it's true: Voters who think it's absurd that the government continues to arrest 750,000 or so people every year for possessing a plant can never get it together, because they are constantly high. Likewise, it's amazing that drinkers in Washington state managed to pass a ballot intitiative privatizing liquor sales last fall, because everyone knows those people are so wasted all the time they don't even know when it's Election Day.
In fact, pot smokers are so stupid that even if they manage to put down their bongs, get up off their couches, turn off their Xboxes, dust off the Dorito dust, and meander to the polls, they won't realize that Barack Obama, despite his own extensive history of drug use and his promises of a more enlightened and compassionate approach, has been no better than George W. Bush on drug policy and in some respects worse. They probably don't even know that Obama cracked down on medical marijuana instead of letting states go their own way (as he said he would when he ran for president), that so far he has commuted ony one drug offender's sentence (despite his pre-presidential criticism of excessively harsh penalties), or that he literally laughs at the very notion of legalizing marijuana (despite his past support for decriminalization)—in much the same way that Reeve laughs at people who are misguided enough to let the ongoing outrage that is the war on drugs guide their votes. If such people exist, they sure as hell should not vote for Barack Obama. 

The Attacks Begin In Earnest

We have warned our readers that the Obama Administration along with its friends in the media will start a campaign against Romney with information they have known about for years. The following article is about the first one against Romney. It will only get worse.

Is it true? Probably not, but this group will make it seem so!
Conservative Tom

Axelrod hits Romney for 'Bermuda tax shelter'

Senior Obama strategist David Axelrod offered something of a fireworks display Wednesday on Twitter, launching a barrage of messages meant to draw attention to two reports that highlight Mitt Romney's stake in a Bermuda company that has never been listed on his state or federal financial reports.
@DavidAxelrod: Astonishing story about Mitt's Bermuda tax shelter and his efforts to keep it secret, apparently skirting MA law. 1/4
@DavidAxelrod: A Swiss bank account. A dozen funds in the Cayman Islands. And now, a Bermuda tax shelter he failed to report. 2/4
@DavidAxelrod: How many of these revelations will it take for the media to demand a full accounting of Mitt's tax returns and finances? 3/4
@DavidAxelrod: Or will his campaign continue to stonewall and keep him secure within the MPP-the Mittness Protection Program? 4/4
The company in question - Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. - is described by government financial documents as "a Bermuda corporation wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney." Yet, as both Vanity Fair and the Associated Press note in new reports, it has never appeared on the candidate's financial disclosure forms. Limited details on its existence only recently came to light when Romney released his 2010 tax return under public pressure.
"Even after examining that return, we have no idea what is in this company, but it could be valuable, meaning that it is possible Romney's wealth is even greater than previous estimates," writes Nicholas Shaxson in Vanity Fair. "While the Romneys' spokespeople insist that the couple has paid all the taxes required by law, investments in tax havens such as Bermuda raise many questions, because they are in 'jurisdictions where there is virtually no tax and virtually no compliance,' as one Miami-based offshore lawyer put it."
Notes AP's Stephen Braun, "The omissions were permitted by state and federal authorities overseeing Romney's ethics filings, and he has never been cited for failing to disclose information about his money. But Romney's limited disclosures deprive the public of an accurate depiction of his wealth and a clear understanding of how his assets are handled and taxed, according to experts in private equity, tax and campaign finance law."
Democrats say Romney's secretive financial holdings raise questions about his intentions and potential conflicts of interest. They say the Bermuda company - along with a Swiss bank account, Cayman Islands accounts, and other foreign funds, Romney has had ties to - suggest that Romney is "betting against America." It's a theme President Obama will push during his two-day, two-state bus tour which kicks off tomorrow in Ohio.
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told AP the governor has complied with all state and federal laws. "Everything on the filings is reported as required. If OGE [Office of Government Ethics] has an issue with any filings, they would let us know," she said.
In a statement to ABC News, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg called Axelrod's tweets part of a pattern of allegations that "have been proven false time and again."
"As job growth slows, manufacturing activity stalls, and our economy continues to sputter, President Obama knows he can't make a legitimate argument for another term in office, so instead he is trying to tear down his opponent," she said. "This is just the latest example of President Obama and his political machine saying or doing anything to distract from his abysmal record over the last four years."

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

U.S. Military Deaths Accelerating in Afghanistan

We wonder how the Administration will spin the fact that of the past eleven years, 70% of the deaths have occurred under Obama's watch. It must be Bush's fault! The former President must have been firing the bullets and IEDs that killed these guys and gals!

Could it be Obama's announced plans to leave that is causing an increased number of deaths in the past couple months?  Or poor leadership of the generals that Obama has selected? Or is Afghanistan the death pit all other nations have found when they got involved there?

Whatever the reason the White House ultimately will blame Bush, as that mantra is their one-trick-pony when it comes to any issue. It is time for this Administration to step up and be forthcoming with the country and admit, they are out of their element and have no answers. Of course, they never will do that as that would be folly in an election year.

Hopefully, we can rid ourselves of this albatross in November!

Conservative Tom

70% of U.S. Military Fatalities in 11-Year Afghan War Have Occurred on Obama's Watch

Barack Obama
President Barack Obama at Pittsburgh International Airport on June 24, 2011. (Official White House photo/Pete Souza)
( - Of the 1,912 U.S. military personnel who have died in the now nearly 11-year-long war in Afghanistan, 1,343 have died since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.
Seventy percent of the Afghan War casualties have happened on Obama's watch.
The war in Afghanistan started on Oct. 7, 2001, when the United States invaded that country to track down al Qaeda terrorists and overthrow the Taliban regime that had provided sanctuary to al Qaeda in the years before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
So far this year, 155 U.S. military personnel have died in Afghanistan. That is about 22 percent less than the 198 U.S. military personnel who were killed in Afghanistan from January to June last year. May was the deadliest month so far in 2012 with 40 deaths. It was also deadliest May of the war.
The three years of the Obama have been the three deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In 2009, 303 U.S. service members perished there. In 2010, 497 did. In 2011, 399 U.S. military personnel died in Afghanistan.
Obama has also presided over the top five deadliest months of the war, which include: August 2011, when there were 71 deaths; July 2010, when there were 65 deaths; June 2010, when there were 60 deaths; October 2009, when there were 58 deaths; and August 2010, when there were 55 deaths.
Improvised explosive devices (IEDs), also known as homemade bombs, continue to be the number one killer of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, accounting for death of about half of the U.S. military personnel who have died inthe war.
American fatalities have been concentrated in the southern Afghan provinces of Helmand and Kandahar. These two provinces, which border Pakistan, have been the focus of most U.S.-led military activity during the conflict.
That activity is now extending to eastern Afghanistan, which also borders Pakistan.
In all, about 80 percent of all U.S. military casualties have taken place in Afghan provinces that border Pakistan.
The majority of the U.S. military personnel who have died inthe Afghan War have died due to combat-related injuries. Non-combat related deaths are those caused by accidents, illnesses, drowning, or other non-combat incidents in and around Afghanistan.
By the end of 2014, the U.S.-led coalition forces are expected to transfer the lead in security responsibilities to the Afghan National Security Forces.
President Obama has agreed that some U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to support training and counterterrorism operations led by the Afghan forces. The scope of the U.S. force that will stay behind has not been decided yet.
Historically, the Afghan summer months of June to September are when most of the heavy fighting and thus most of the U.S. military casualties take place. Those months are known as the “fighting season.”
On June 20, David Sedney, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, told the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations that the 2012 fighting season “will be the most significant challenge for the Afghan security forces, as they are more in the lead than ever before.”’s detailed database of U.S. military fatalities in Afghanistan is derived from official Department of Defense (DOD) casualty reports enhanced by information taken from the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and media accounts.
The count of U.S. military fatalities in the Afghan War includes all U.S. military personnel who died or were fatally injured in Afghanistan itself, plus four who died on ships at sea supporting operations in Afghanistan, plus 12 who died in Pakistan.  It does not count military personnel who have died while participating in Operation Enduring Freedom in other regions of the world, where they were not supporting military operations in Afghanistan.
The overall Operation Enduring Freedom has covered U.S.-led military activity in 15 countries in addition to Afghanistan.
American military deaths under the overall Operation Enduring Freedom marked a grim milestone in June as they surpassed 2,000. There have been at least 114 American fatalities in locations other than Afghanistan since the operation started in 2001.

Firefighting Aircraft Contract Cancelled--Homes Burn

Two years ago there were more than 40 aircraft that could be used for fighting forest fires, now there are eleven and four of those have been grounded due to a crash.  Our brave fire fighters are trying to put out the massive blazes with one hand tied behind their backs. Those of you who have lost your homes in Colorado and elsewhere, can thank the Obama Administration for the cancellation of a contract for most of these planes.

Please understand that we have no problem with the government making sure that the planes are used to fight these fires are airworthy. No one wants the pilots and others on the ground being hurt because one of these planes crash due to a failure. However, someone should be responsible to ensure that there are enough planes to fight the inevitable fires that occur each year around the country.

It is ironic that the U.S. Forest Service  can buy thousands of bullets (for what reason, we do not know maybe the elk are arming themselves) but cannot contract with sufficient companies to provide planes to put out fires. 

The entire purpose of the government is to protect us, in this case, against fire in the forest.  Yet, here is a glaring example of them not meeting their responsibilities.  Who should we hold responsible? Obviously, no public servant will ever fess up or be brought up on charges for making this blunder.  

Government never is competent, it is incompetent by its vary nature. You have bosses without any investment in the outcome and who are not graded by the results of their output who manage employees whose mantra is "that is not my job" while being politically correct and not wanting to "rock the boat." Everyone works 9-5 and does not take work home. To expect exceptional work from these drones, is foolhardy.

We can point to example after example of things going haywire and no one being held responsible. It seems  the only people who get fired are those who want to improve things, troublemakers by name.  So when we see the Forest Service slashing their contracted fleet, no one, in government, seems concerned.  

However, if your home burns, you know there is a real cost to this incompetency.  We feel sorry for those who have or will lose their homes this summer, whose loss will be personal and no one will be held to account for not doing their job. Shame on everyone in the U.S.  Forest Service from Smokey the Bear on down!  You all should lose your jobs or pay for those whose houses you have destroyed by your incompetency!

Conservative Tom

U.S. Forest Service Firefighting Fleet Depleted After Contract Cancellation

An Obama administration decision to cancel a government contract for aerial firefighting planes in 2011 has left the U.S. Forest Service’s airborne fleet depleted as rapidly moving wildfires spread throughout the state of Colorado and elsewhere in the country amid excessive heat and extremely dry weather conditions.
The reduction in the number of planes—from more than 40 to just 11—ended a 50-year relationship between the Forest Service and Aero Union, which provided the planes, and 60 jobs, fighting fires. The Forest Service cited an airworthiness inspection program as one reason for terminating the contract, despite the company’s insistence that it had passed its annual inspection.
“Our main priority is protecting and saving lives, and we can’t in good conscience maintain an aviation contract where we feel lives may be put at risk due to inadequate safety practices,” said one Forest Service official.
pair of tanker crashes, including one earlier this month, has further reduced the number of immediately available aircraft to just nine.
Calls for a review of Forest Service planning related to the nation’s aging and inadequate fleet came from four lawmakers in a letter sent in March 2012 by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to the Government Accountability Office.
Speeding up the agency’s slow-moving long-term strategy process would be necessary should another record-breaking year of wildfires strike in 2012, the Washington Post noted as early as February, but the push to replace the entire fleet of large aircraft has stretched out over at least a decade.
Air tanker crashes in 2002, including one in Colorado, put pressure on the Forest Service to weed out many dilapidated planes, including converted tankers from the 1940s and 1950s that were showing signs of excessive wear from the demanding stress of fighting fires. Tankers across the country were grounded temporarily as a precaution following the crash.
The Forest Service’s own estimates call for as many as 18-28 “next generation” large air tankers to meet the nation’s firefighting requirements. As a stopgap, the Forest Service has tapped into preexisting arrangements with the state of Alaska, the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, and the military to deploy an additional 16 large air tankers.
But recent news from the Forest Service announcing plans for seven new firefighting aircraft from contracts awarded to four different firms will not provide immediate relief, as only three tankers will be available this year (but not, perhaps, for several months), and the remaining four will be delivered in 2013.

Monday, July 2, 2012

Alternate Opinion on Roberts ObamaCare Decision

We think the following article might be at least partially right. What do you think?

Conservative Tom

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius
Posted by I. M. Citizen on June 28, 2012 Healthcare.
June 28, 2012
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it's important that you think carefully about the meaning - the true nature - of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here's what really occurred - payback. Yes, payback for Obama's numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That's how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can't compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn't have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said 'hey, a penalty or a tax, either way'. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land - beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states - 'comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.' Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can't penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in "national" health-care? Suddenly, it's not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government's coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
Although he didn't guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he'll be home in time for dinner.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Obama--Not Eligible Say Democrats

Tennessee Democrats finally admit that Obama might not be qualified to be President. Yes, that is what they said in a motion in Tennessee.  Of course, if one really thinks that it will deter "his hindendedness" from his radical agenda and the  "sheep-like" lefties from continuing to support him, you have something loose! 

This country's only hope is to defeat him and his minions in November.  If we do not, this country is finished. The damage that has already be done will be magnified 20 times over prior to the next election. This is a scary time!

 Conservative Tom

Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible

Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and that it doesn’t matter.
According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.”
In numerous previous lawsuits questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats have maintained that voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of presidential eligibility. Though a disgraceful assertion on its face, such mindless rambling was about all that desperate Democrat attorneys had in their arsenals, apart from the perpetually employed “plaintiffs lack standing” defense.

But now, the cat is out of the bag, and the true sentiments of Democrat Party officials have finally been aired. It seems that, according to the left, as long as the acting president has the requisite contempt for the United States, is willing to work tirelessly to destroy the national economy, and will ignore both the rule of law and his Constitutional duty to enforce it, he is eminently qualified to hold the country’s top job.
In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi ignored Supreme Court precedent, made a shambles of case law, and distorted the rulings of other courts in a pathetically obvious mission to find Barack Obama eligible for the Georgia presidential ballot. Although the first judge to decide an Obama eligibility case on the merits, his contempt for an honest judicial process certainly did nothing to mend the rapidly deteriorating reputation of the American legal system.
On Wednesday, United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson joined a long list of robed colleagues, ruling that plaintiffs in the Tennessee case “lacked standing” to point out Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the presidency. That is, plaintiffs could not claim sufficient personal harm should the Manchurian Candidate remain in or be re-elected to the White House.
Strange how the law works. After 3 ½ years of cynical disregard for the borders, language, and culture of the United States, one would think that some 240 million people have suffered “sufficient personal harm” to claim legal standing for a crack at His Royal Highness in a court of law! There are only 30 million illegals currently residing in the United States, and those the Attorney General refers to as “his people” might actually lack legal standing in the eyes of an honest arbiter.
At any rate, Democrats have finally admitted what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Barack Obama is NOT qualified to hold the job won for him by the national media in 2008. But it seems only the voters will have the authority to reclaim it from him. God willing, the vast majority who exercise that authority in November will be both American and alive.