Topics
America the Beautiful
Arizona
Articles - Alan Caruba
Articles - American Thinker
Articles - Ann Coulter
Articles - Ben Johnson
Articles - Burt Prelutsky
Articles - Caroline Glick
Articles - Charles Krauthammer
Articles - Chuck Baldwin
Articles - Cliff Kincaid
Articles - Craig Cantoni
Articles - David Horowitz
Articles - David Limbaugh
Articles - David Roth
Articles - Frank Salvato
Articles - Frosty Wooldridge
Articles - Gabriel Garnica
Articles - IBD
Articles - James Taranto
Articles - Jerome R. Corsi
Articles - John W. Howard
Articles - Jonathan Tobin
Articles - MIchelle Malkin
Articles - Mac Johnson
Articles - Mark Steyn
Articles - Michael Reagan
Articles - Mike S. Adams
Articles - Newt Gingrich
Articles - Patrick Buchanan
Articles - Peggy Noonan
Articles - Phyllis Schlafly
Articles - Raymond Kraft
Articles - Red State Patriot
Articles - Sandra J. Miller
Articles - Sultan Knish
Articles - Thomas Sowell
Articles - Tom DeWeese
Articles - Tony Blankley
Articles - WSJ
Articles - Walter E. Willliams
Articles - William C. Douglas
Articles Laura Ingraham
Budget, Taxation and Fiscal Policy
Candidate - Barack Obama
Candidate - John McCain
Candidate - Sarah Palin
Congress
Congressional Spending & Earmarks
Constitution and Government
Domestic Issues and Politics
Economics and Business
Education
Energy
Entertainment
Environment
Featured Cartoons
Financial Market Commentary
Foreign Policy
Gender and Race
Gun Control
Humor
Immigration and Border Control
Iraq
Islam, Terrorism and WMD
Israel and Middle East
Law and Legal Issues
Media and Entertainment
Medicine and Healthcare
NAU & New World Order
National Defense and National Security
Philosophy
Political Thought
Public Service Announcement
Religion and Culture
Social Security
Socialism
Supreme Court
Technology
Trade and Commerce
U.S. Armed Forces
Video
Welfare and the Entitlement Culture
Search
Archives
September 2010
August 2010
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
|
Articles - Raymond Kraft Archives
The Great Obama Swindle of 2008

Part One: OBAMA - THE ILLEGAL ALIEN
I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized. If he is elected, he will be the UnConstitutional President from the moment he takes the oath of office, the first president who is not a citizen of the United States.
Why I am so sure? I was not convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama's birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama's origins. I was convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, asking the governor of Hawaii to seal Obama's birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone, and by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, sealing his records at Columbia University and Harvard Law. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America. And he wants to be POTUS, and Commander-in-Chief.
Read More »In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can't wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they'll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it. (emphasis added)
Obama is tap dancing.
If I were Obama's lawyers, and if there was a good, authentic, birth certificate that proved Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii, I would tell him to instruct the Hawaiian Department of Health to provide a certified copy to every journalist who asked about it, to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits, and to make the original available for inspection by any expert forensic document examiner any litigant or news agency engaged to examine the birth certificate for authenticity. I would tell him to come clean, and end the speculation. And I would tell him that the speculation could cost him the election.
But that's not what Obama's lawyers are doing, they're filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on "technicalities," at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.
But what Obama and his lawyers and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) are not doing is being open and honest with America. They're tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago. So we are forced to this conclusion as a matter of logical necessity:
1. If Barack Obama could produce a good birth certificate that would verify his status as a "natural born citizen," he would. Failing to do so can only hurt him. Failing to do so can cost him the election.
2. He hasn't, and is doing all possible not to.
3. Therefore, we can only conclude that he can't, and that his birth certificate, if it exists at all, is either altered, forged, or shows him born outside the U.S. We have to conclude that producing his birth certificate, if he can, will prove he is not eligible to be president, not a natural born citizen, or not a citizen at all. We can only conclude that Obama and his lawyers know that producing his birth records will hurt him even more than not producing them.
Now, I could be wrong. Barack Obama can prove me wrong by producing a good birth certificate. But he hasn't. Will he? Can he?
Part Two: NO "STANDING" TO SUE?
In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama's lawyers and ruled that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no "standing" to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because, arguendo, only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot.
This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life – and from a Federal Judge, at that. And if I didn't make myself perfectly clear, let me know and I'll try again.
Let's do the analysis.
1. The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.
2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.
3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. It’s just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.
4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment "to petition the government for redress of grievances." If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.
I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.
Part Three: THE DUTY OF CONGRESS
Article II, Section 1, requires that upon taking office the President of the United States shall take the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Article VI, Clause 3, requires that Senators and Representatives requires:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."
Members of Congress take this oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Having taken this oath, Sen. Barack Obama has violated his oath of office if he is refusing to disclose a birth certificate that proves his candidacy for president is unconstitutional, and I believe this is a mandatory basis for his impeachment.
Having taken these oaths, the President, the Vice President (an executive officer of the United States), every member of the Senate and House, every member of every State legislature, and every executive and judicial officers of the United States and of each State, has a mandatory duty per Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution to "support and defend" the Constitution, and that would necessarily include taking whatever action is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President.
And every Federal Judge, and every Justice of the Supreme Court, having taken this oath, also have a mandatory duty to "protect and defend" the Constitution by doing whatever is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President. Indeed, I believe that the Supreme Court has a sua sponte duty to resolve this dispute by ordering, on its own initiative, the immediate production of all of Obama's birth records in order to confirm his place of birth, and prevent the election of an UnConstitutional President. So far, all Justices of the Supreme Court have failed this mandatory duty.
So far, the President, the Vice President, every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, ever Federal Judge and Justice, every member of every State legislature, and every governor, have failed in this duty. They have all failed to fulfill their oaths of office. Every one. They must all demand that Sen. Barack Obama either (a) produce a good birth certificate proving his status as a "natural born citizen," or (b) withdraw his candidacy before November 4th.
All those who do not should be impeached for having failed their oath of office.
Part Four: THE GREATEST SWINDLE IN HISTORY
If Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot prove that he is a "natural born citizen," then Obama, the Democrat National Committee, the Democrats in the Senate and House who support him, and others such as former president Bill Clinton who openly support him, have perpetrated the greatest swindle in history by falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting Obama as Constitutionally eligible to be president, concealing the truth about his place of birth, thereby inducing millions of Democrats by the fraud of concealment, by the lie of non-disclosure, by "trick and device," to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Barack Obama presidential campaign to elect an UnConstitutional President.
My opinion.
Note, this is a fraud perpetrated by Sen. Barack Obama, the DNC, and hundreds of Democrats in Congress, on their own constituency, the Democrat voters of America. It is a fraud of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and perpetrated on the Democrats. And it has defrauded Democrats out of more than $600 million.
According to their oaths of office, every Democrat member of Congress has an affirmative duty to assure that their presidential candidate is constitutionally qualified. As soon as questions about Obama's birth arose, every Democrat in Congress had a mandatory duty to confirm his eligibility by demanding release of his birth records. But, they have not. Not to my knowledge. Instead, every Democrat in Congress is complicit in the cover up – the cover up – of Obama's birth certificate, by failing to demand full disclosure to confirm his place of birth.
In my opinion, unless Obama can produce a good birth certificate proving that he is a "natural born citizen," then every Democrat member of Congress, every person managing Obama's campaign, every officer and director of the Democrat National Commitee, and every person who has ever taken an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution and is now supporting an UnConstitutional candidate for president, has participated in a vast left-wing conspiracy to defraud millions of Democrats out of hundreds of millions of dollars to elect an UnConstitutional President.
In my opinion, every one of these people, hundreds of them, should be prosecuted for fraud under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for if Obama is not a "natural born citizen," that is what the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has become. And every one of them should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison for decades, for this is a $600 billion swindle of America's Democrats, a swindle perpetrated by the DNC and Barack Obama.
Now, I could be wrong. I could be wrong about every opinion I have expressed here.
Sen. Barack Hussein Obama can prove me wrong, quickly, simply, easily, by opening the doors of the hospitals and the Hawaiian Department of Health and showing us, showing America, showing the Democrats, all of his birth records.
Unless and until he does, I will remain convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen.
Raymond Kraft
October 28, 2008
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1614/pub_detail.asp
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Raymond S. Kraft is an attorney and writer in Northern California. He can be contacted at rskraft@vfr.net.
-------------------
Response by Anonymous:
“… spare me from having to read this kind of garbage. … I don't have that much time to waste. Don't you find it odd that John McCain, and his minions of ex-Rove scholars -- who had the entire U.S. Intelligence arms (overt and covert) at their disposal -- would have figured out where Obama was born if they that it would disqualify him? And, if Obama were able to pull off the scam he's accused of, I'd say he's smarter than his supporters thought and his critics feared -- in which case who'd care where he was born.” Anonymous
--------------
Response by Tom Wanamaker:
I've maintained all along that the quickest way to shut up the critics over the Obama birth certificate question is for the Obama camp to just put it out there and that would be the end of it. Their behavior sure makes it look like a cover-up.
Will Rogers once said, "The truth is ready to go at a moment's notice. A lie? Well, it needs a lot more dressin' up before you can take it out."
---------------
Response by Marty Dillian:
Silence by both Obama and the U.S. Supreme Court only serves an insidious agenda. One can only hope that the U.S. Constitution, and their Oath of Office, is as important to Supreme Court Justices as it is to the rest of us. Should the Supreme Court refuse to address the constitutionality of the man assuming the Presidency (POTUS), the U.S. Constitution will, in the blink of an eye, become a dead national artifact along with the Rule of Law.
Think of the entire issue as an O.J. Simpson Redux (brought back, revisited), and the possibility of jury nullification on a far grander scale, this time by the U.S. Supreme Court. Should that occur, there will be one huge difference with the defendant O.J. Simpson. Rather than freeing a man accused of multiple homicides, the Supreme Court would, by their actions, for racial reasons be repudiating and discarding the most fundamental of our nation’s founding documents, the United States Constitution. In a very real sense they would be complicit in the murder of a nation. Should that unholy event transpire, our national culture will instantly and irreversibly become ‘every man for himself’. « Close It
Posted November 17, 2008 06:47 AM Permalink
Read more on Articles - Raymond Kraft
~ Candidate - Barack Obama
The End of Greenism?

It hasn't quite hit the radar of the liberals in Congress, but as the price of gasoline soars above $4 a gallon (and here in California it's closing in on $5), they're going to be facing a hard choice with no good options. They will be forced to (a) throw the Greens under the bus, and embrace the idea of drilling for oil in America, in ANWR, off the coasts, wherever it may be found, or (b) throw the U.S. economy under the bus, and lose the November election to a Republican landslide, no matter who their candidate is.
Read More »If, that is, John McCain can be persuaded to see the light, come to his senses, and make a prime time speech in which he apologizes for being wrong about global warming and climate change, has learned that CO2 is not the enemy, that humans have no identifiable effect on climate, which has always been changing, and humans cannot stop it; and that it is far more important to produce enough energy from all sources, nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, oil, and coal, than to go tilting at the windmills of Greenism to stop the unstoppable climate change, which is entirely natural and organic.
If John McCain can learn that lesson, he can turn the issue of global warming and climate change on its head, and use it to take down his opponent and the Greens and Greenism in the next four months. But it must be done as a frontal attack, a headlong cavalry charge straight up the hill into the face of the enemy; something neither his opponent nor the Greens are prepared for. It would throw them into total panic and disarray.
Last week oil prices spiked $10.75 in one day, a new record, closing Friday at $138.54. Unemployment rose 10% in one month, May, from 5% to 5.5%. The Dow dropped 394 points, the biggest drop in over a year. The average working stiff has seen his cost to commute to work and home again double in less than two years, even as the equity in his house plummeted. And airlines are cutting hundreds of flights, and thousands of jobs. The high cost of not drilling for oil in America is going to savage the economy at every level.
Cybercast News Service (CNS News), in a June 6th article entitled "Lawmakers Split on Drilling for Vast Amounts of Oil in USA," reports that the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management estimates there are 139 billion barrels of untapped, recoverable oil onshore and offshore in the United States. This does not include the vast Bakken oil fields of Montana and the Dakotas, or the enormous shale oil deposits in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, or the oil sands of Oklahoma. CNS interviewed four members of Congress and found the Republicans supporting Jed Babbin's call to "drill here, drill now," while Democrats were opposed.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, "You've got that right. We can't get it (the oil) because the environmental elitists are preventing that with moratoria saying it would take ten years to get it developed. "Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) also said Congress should deregulate to allow more drilling. "My sense is that the most direct route is for Congress to take direct action and give the American people more access to American oil."
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) replied, "No," adding that he would "never say never," but that circumstances would have to be "pretty drastic" for him to agree to more drilling. "I am more concerned about global warming and the impact of fossil fuel," he said. House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) told CNS he needs to study the issue more. "I haven't studied enough to make that decision," he said.
But a lot of middle class, working class, and fixed-income Americans have studied the issue quite enough, and they're beginning to get angry, visibly angry, at the inexcusable inaction of Congress. As gas prices continue to rise through the summer, the anger will swell into fury. "Earth to Mike Honda," they'll be saying soon, "For us, your constituents, five dollar gasoline is pretty drastic. Earth to Charlie Rangel, how many years do you have to study to learn what you can learn in a day? If it takes that long, Charlie, are you sure you're smart enough to be a member of Congress?"
Wasn't it Mark Twain who once quipped, "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress - but I repeat myself."
Presently, we import 5.4 million barrels of oil a day from OPEC countries. At $138 a barrel, that's $745 million dollars a day we're "exporting" to Saudi Arabia and its neighbors. At 40 jobs per million dollars (at $50,000 a year per job) that's 29,800 jobs for Americans we are "outsourcing" to OPEC each day, rather than investing that money in American oil production and American jobs. At 29,800 jobs a day, that's 10,877,000 American jobs we are exporting to OPEC each year, and if the price of oil rises, so will the job loss. Democrats have threatened to punish corporations that outsource jobs to other countries, but the Democrats' own misbegotten Green policies are the No. 1cause of outsourcing in America.
At some point, something has to give, and it will either be the U.S. economy or Greenism, the obsessive-compulsive Environmentalist Personality Disorder that will sacrifice the jobs, fortunes, futures, and lives, of three hundred million Americans, in slavish homage to the myth that burning "fossil fuels" is causing climate change, and that by reducing our "carbon footprint" we can end climate change. Nothing is further from the truth. The climate has been changing as long as there has been a climate, long before we could have had anything to do with it.
How we ended up with a majority in Congress, and two presidential candidates, who are so appallingly ignorant of the basics of climatology, climate history, and the ubiquity of climate change, after this debate has already been raging for years, is a complete mystery to me. It is, in my opinion, Congressional malpractice: the willful or negligent failure of most members of Congress to become well informed about the real science and history of climate change and what the effect, if any, of CO2 on the global climate really is, or isn't, before making legislative decisions that profoundly affect the lives of 300 million Americans. And I wonder: can we sue Congress, for Congressional Malpractice?
Can we sue Congress for acting on false assumptions, when, by the exercise of reasonable care and due diligence, they could, and should, have become fully and honestly informed on the global warming and climate change issues, before making bad decisions that adversely affect the U.S. economy and the lives of every one of their constituents? Don't they have that duty? And haven't they breached it? And aren't we paying for it?
There is only one way to rescue America from the rising cost of energy that threatens to overwhelm the U.S. economy. And that is to produce more energy. As soon as possible. In America.
We don't have time to wait for pie-in-the-sky fantasies, such as cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. A little arithmetic tells us that to replace oil with switchgrass, which according to National Geographic can produce "up to" 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, per year, we'd have to produce a billion gallons a day, to replace the gasoline and diesel we consume. That's 365 billion gallons a year, plus another 15% to provide the energy to produce all that cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass, for a total of 420 billion gallons a year. This would require 420 cellulosic ethanol plants producing a billion gallons a year, each, and so far, we don't have one. Not one producer of cellulosic ethanol on a commercial scale. And it would require 420 million acres of switchgrass farms, which would be a 150% increase in American farmland. And would not the adverse environmental impact of converting 420 million acres of wildlife habitat to switchgrass farms be enormous? Where are the Greens now? Why isn't the Sierra Club demanding an Environmental Impact Report?
Congress needs to come to grips with the fact that there is no credible evidence that CO2 causes "global warming. "It has been warmer in the past, when CO2 was lower than now, and the temperature dropped 0.7 degrees last year, while CO2 was rising.
But CO2 is plant food, fertilizer, plants suck it up and grow, and more CO2 in the air means plants grow faster, and need less water. With a growing world population facing chronic food shortages, we need more CO2 in the air to produce more food, not less.
And this means the misguided, misbegotten, delusional era of Greenism has to end. Soon. Now. The delusions of the radical environmentalists have taken us down this dangerous road, and the chickens are coming home to roost. And the chickens are very expensive. Having quarantined 90% of Federal lands from energy exploration and development, and blocked construction of nuclear power, and fuel refineries, it is the environmentalist policies, the Green policies, the Greenism, of the last generation that has put American in the spot it's in, and America can only get out of the spot by rejecting the delusional Greenism of the past, and embracing a rational energy policy for the future.
I'm with Barack Obama. I want "change"...but maybe not the same change Barack Obama wants.
Here's the change I want:
1. Legislation to immediately lift all moratoria on oil and natural gas exploration and development on Federal lands, except National Parks.
2. Legislation to grant a 100% tax credit for all new capital investment in energy production in the U.S. and its territorial waters. If you spent $20,000 to put solar panels on your roof, you get a $20,000 tax credit. If Exxon puts $75 billion into developing new oil production in the U.S., Exxon gets a $75 billion tax credit. This would "send a message" to OPEC that the party's just about over, and it would create millions of new jobs for working class Americans in America.
3. Legislation to fast-track NRC-approved nuclear power plant designs, and to require Green plaintiffs suing to block the construction of nuclear power plants, geothermal plants, oil refineries, or any other energy project, to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that the proposed project was unreasonably dangerous, or that the harm it would cause was greater than the benefit it would confer.
Barack Obama said recently that he will deliver "$150 billion over the next ten years" to develop alternative energy.
That's way too little, way too late. America needs it now, not ten years from now. We don't need to pass it through the government skim machine.
And Barry Boy is clueless. By granting a 100% tax credit for new capital investment in energy in the United States, we unleash the magnificent ingenuity of the American people, who will pump $150 billion into energy development in one year, not ten, and produce ten times, or a hundred times, as much new energy in ten years as any government-managed program ever could.
That's change.
And that's the end of Greenism.
Raymond Kraft
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.325/pub_detail.asp
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
-------------------
Response from James Taylor:
I find no fault with your article except to say, but their is more! There are 75,000 dams in the US, 8,000 are 50 feet or more in height, but only 850 of them produce 5mw or more. The Greens will not let us expand our hydro-electric resources even though there is no carbon released. Cheap and abundant electrical energy could end the use of oil for heating which should be a win/win solution. This makes their real goal a little clearer. They are trying to force America to reduce all energy use, renewable or not.
Al Gore stated in 92', that the internal combustion engine needs to be phased out over the next 25 years. He and his liberal following are using global warming as an excuse to restructure our nation, and allow us to be dominated by the rest of the world. Open borders with non-citizens allowed to do as they please while Americans are limited to only so much carbon use each year. If you drive or fly too much, or kept your home too warm in the winter, you would pay a fine and lose your vehicle.
I have also read about some Greens even filing lawsuits against wind and solar farms.
Thanks for all the good work you are doing, James « Close It
Posted June 10, 2008 07:37 PM Permalink
Read more on Articles - Raymond Kraft
~ Candidate - Barack Obama
~ Candidate - John McCain
~ Energy
~ Environment
10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR

At $130 a barrel, the real, hidden cost of the liberals' refusal to open up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the oil resources off our coasts is 10 million jobs.
Ten million jobs for middle-class, working-class Americans that are being "outsourced" to OPEC daily, even as the Senate debates bizarrely complex "carbon cap and trade" legislation that would charge American businesses (most of them) that produce carbon emissions for the right to stay in business; then let those that reduce their carbon emissions sell or "trade" their carbon credits to other businesses that need to grow but will use more energy in the process. The effect of this fiasco will be to impose a new tax on all businesses and on all business growth, which will stunt business growth, economic growth, personal income growth, job growth, and tax receipts.
It's intended to fix the biggest non-problem in history, human-induced global warming -
Read More »the fraud that has made Al Gore a centimillionaire. If we look at the real climate data, the long term temperature trends show us that the climate is 0.4 degrees warmer than 1,000 years ago, and 3 degrees cooler than 8,000 years ago (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/). The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction charts the global temperature falling 0.4 degrees from 1988 to 1992, then rising 0.8 degrees from 1992 to peak in1998, then falling 0.7 degrees by January 2008.
The climate has been changing as long as there has been a climate. It's not our fault, and we can't stop it.
But I digress.
Currently, the U.S. imports roughly 25% of its oil, 5.4 million barrels a day, from OPEC, mostly from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and Nigeria. At $130 a barrel, we are exporting over $700 million dollars a day to OPEC. $1.4 billion every two days. $256 billion a year. That's more than one-third of the US trade deficit of $720 billion. And that's why the value of the US dollar is falling. Not the only reason, but a big reason.
For 20 years, environmentalists, Democrats, and a few misguided Republicans have been busy keeping ‘Big Oil’ out of ANWR and out of the oil fields on the Coastal Shelves, where there are an estimated 635 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to heat 60 million American homes for a century, and 115 billion barrels of oil, enough to replace 100% of the oil we now buy from OPEC for 21 years. At $130 a barrel, that would cut out trade deficit by $5.4 trillion over 21 years.
Yes, $5.4 trillion, which is enough to pay the entire federal budget for nearly two years.
Critics say that opening up 2,000 acres of the 19,049,236 acre Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for oil production would do little to bring down the price of gas and that may be so. But it would add jobs by the millions, to the U.S. economy. With an estimated 10 billion barrels, ANWR could produce 1 million barrels a day for 30 years. At $130 a barrel, that's $130 million a day. That's $47 billion a year.
A million dollars creates 40 jobs at an average pay of $50,000 a year. $130 million creates 5,200 jobs at $50,000 a year.$47 billion creates 1,880,000 new jobs for American workers at $50,000 a year. At current oil prices, by keeping ANWR off limits, Democrats reduce employment for the middle-class, working-class Americans they pretend to care about by 1,880,000 jobs. And that's enough jobs to cut the unemployment rate from 5% to 4%.
But what if we open up the Coastal Shelves for oil production, too? And produce 5.4 million barrels a day, to replace all the oil we buy from OPEC?
That would re-invest the $256 billion a year we now deport to OPEC back into the U.S. economy. And that would fund 10,152,000 new jobs for working-class Americans, jobs that pay an average of $50,000 a year. And that's enough new jobs to reduce the unemployment rate, in theory, from 5% to 0%. Zero. And that is the high cost of keeping ANWR "pristine." We can lay the blame for 100% of America's unemployment at the feet of the Democrats, liberal Republicans and environmentalists who keep ANWR and the coastal oil reserves off limits. (Thank you Senator John McCain. – emphasis added)
Put another way, every year that we continue buying 5.4 million barrels of oil a day from OPEC, we "outsource" more than ten million American jobs to OPEC. If politicians really cared about working-class Americans, they would be rushing to open up ANWR and other oil and gas reserves on federal lands as quickly as possible to create ten million new jobs, revalue the falling dollar, stimulate the economy, and write a declaration of independence from OPEC.
But, they don't.
By Raymond Kraft
June 5, 2008
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/10-million-jobs-the-high-cost-of-saving-anwr/ « Close It
Posted June 8, 2008 08:02 AM Permalink
Read more on Articles - Raymond Kraft
~ Energy
There is no such thing as Government Money
There is no such thing as government money - only taxpayer’s money. This is the second in a series that addresses the fiduciary legacy of Congress, the state of the federal budget and the accumulated national debt. The first was "What is a Billion."
After collecting tax revenues from 6 million businesses and the top 50% of American-citizen wage earners, the Congress last year spent a peacetime-record (adjusted for inflation) of $23,760 per household, arguably $20,000 more per household than strictly authorized by the U.S. Constitution – but hey, liberals claim it’s a living Constitution, a roadmap. No longer is the U.S. Constitution a contract with and between Americans. To a liberal in Congress, reality is an illusion that only occurs due to the lack of tax revenue – a situation easily rectified.
Where does the money come from that Congress spends?
Read More »A portion is extracted from businesses of all shapes and sizes in the form of a corporate income tax. Individual income taxes provide five times the amount of corporate taxes. Employment taxes contribute another portion, roughly two thirds of the individual income taxes. Add to that gift, estate and excise taxes. In 2003, tax revenues were somewhere close to $2 trillion. For FY2007, beginning October 1st, 2006, Congress authorized a $2.8 trillion budget, an increase by 40% since President Bush first took office in 2001. President Clinton’s last budget was $1.8 trillion.
We give the President credit for the budget because he signed it into law. However, never forget for a minute that it was Congressmen, our Senators and district Representative, who inserted the spending provisions into the budget and it was Congress that passed it.
What effect is this spending having on the national economy? We are told almost daily there is no demand-driven inflation. Demand is determined by the magnitude of public consumption expenditures and government consumption expenditures, plus investment expenditures and net exports/imports. You know that both public and government consumption expenditures (spending) have been huge. Over the last two years alone, $1.352 trillion of equity has been extracted from real estate - an amount equal to about 10% of annual GDP - and spent without saving hardly a dime. During the same period, net imports/exports has been hugely negative. One only needs to look at product labels in any retail establishment to know that most of what we purchase today was manufactured in foreign countries. Price inflation from government and public consumption expenditures demand is running wild and unchecked, and in several asset classes as a result of speculation, inflation has become “pure.”
Congress could just as easily have shown a pretense of fiscal responsibility and reduced this year’s budget instead of raising it. While Congressmen and the media are quick to tell us the President’s words are all sound – all sound, it is Congress that is blindly proceeding to do just exactly what it wants to do, spending what it collectively wants to spend. It is Congress, aided and abetted by the media, that blames this President (and past presidents) for Congress’ ill-advised decisions on everything from the war in Iraq to entitlement spending and earmarks. Even votes are becoming expensive to purchase. Ask any Congressman.
When anyone overspends their income, they must go into debt if they continue to make purchases, which we know to as “deficit spending.” When tax revenues are inadequate to pay the bills, additional revenue has to come from somewhere. This additonal revenue iis obtained from the sale of United States assets, in the form of government debt instruments (Treasury securities). Treasury securities are issued by the United States Department of the Treasury through the Bureau of the Public Debt – notice in the name the words ‘Public Debt.' Debt financing instruments are referred to simply as "Treasuries." Foreign governments and banks purchase our Treasuries with U.S. dollars which they acquired from selling us consumer goods or petroleum products.
There are four types of Treasury securities: Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds, and Savings bonds. Treasury securities (except savings bonds) are very liquid forms of national debt and heavily traded by international entities on the secondary market.
A national debt is created when a lending foreign government or bank (such as the Federal Reserve) agrees to loan a sum of assets (U.S. dollars) to a debtor nation, in this case the United States. As you would expect, these loans are made with an expectation of repayment, plus interest. The choices are few – repay, reschedule or default. Historically, individual debt was always responsible for the creation of indentured servants. Remember this detail, because national debt is no different, only on a larger scale. National debt is definitely not charity. Charity is best exemplified by the United States’ internal income redistribution programs (entitlement programs) which are a give-away of tax dollars with no expectation of receiving anything in return, not even nationalism. Entitlement programs are a subsidy by Congress of ethically, morally, educationally and culturally challenged Americans and illegal aliens in return for Congressional self interest, votes and power. Any organization or special interest group granted a tax exempt status – whether religious, political or charitable - for any reason - is similarly enjoying a pernicious form of entitlement program – receiving citizenship benefits paid for by other taxpayers including protection of the law, but indignantly contributing nothing – nothing at all.
To anyone who would read this article voluntarily, you probably already know that China has become the world’s biggest foreign exchange holder of U.S. Treasuries. Chinese holdings of United States foreign exchange (debt) reached $853.7 billion as of February 28, 2006. Japanese holdings of U.S. foreign exchange were $852 billion as of March 31, 2006.
For comparison in a global sense, the U.S. current account deficit in 2005 was $791.5 billion. The world’s next largest current account deficit in 2005 was Spain’s $86 billion.
It will take decades for our children and grandchildren to repay our government-incurred national debt, with interest. It is important to emphasize that the national debt is not the responsibility of everyone - only those individuals and corporations who do pay taxes (since the bottom 50% of wage earners and illegal aliens pay no taxes at all).
Red State Patriot « Close It
Posted September 7, 2006 05:56 PM Permalink
Read more on Articles - Raymond Kraft
~ Articles - Red State Patriot
~ Budget, Taxation and Fiscal Policy
|
Navigation
About
Submissions
Subscribe
RSS Feed
Home
Recent Articles
Blogroll
Credits
Powered by Movable Type 3.2
Site design by Sekimori
|