Medicine For the Economy

If Ben Bernanke had any hair on his balls, he would raise interest rates.

But of course, the amount of hair on one's balls does not equate to equalling the number of brain cells in your head.

Here's a prediction. Put your money in money market accounts. The return on investment is going to sky rocket. I'm not saying you will be guaranteed a profit if the Fed continues to follow a hyperinflationary monetary policy. I am only telling you that your losses will be less. If the Fed acts wisely, real after inflationary returns will be realized.

The big banks are threatening that they will crash the economy if the Fed does not provide them with easy money. They think "we" should guarantee their foolish investment decisions. They screwed up and now they want "us" to guarantee them a profit. If it does not happen, they're threatening "through market forces" to squeeze the American economy and force a recession.

Whelp, I say it is about time for the American economy to take a little medicine. Ronald Reagan led us into a time of high interest rates in order to cure that what ails us. Such a time is once again upon us. The excesses of the latter Greenspan days of "easy money" left us weak after our years of partying. Now we have hit bottom. It is time to take some medicine. Most worthy of suffering the consequences of the adjustment are those who grew fattest and "over indulged".

Mr Bernanke needs to, at a minimum, hold the line on the Fed rate. A small increase might be needed, but at least holding the line is MANDATORY. If the Fed continues to increase the liquidity of the financial market all hell is potentially going to break loose.

The financial market took bad risks with easy money. Now they want "us" to bail them out.

"They" are threatening to choke off the supply of money. Well "we" can replace that source of money through an expansion of money available through Ronald Reagan era money market accounts. If the big banks can't figure out how to continue making a dollar on the continuing good credit risks, we can find someone who can. We'll provide the liquidity.

If Ben Bernanke wants to save the dollar, he will not lower the fed rate. Lowering the rate would signal that we have an idiot at the helm of the Fed and we need someone more intelligent at the wheel. Wall Street needs to take its medicine. The medicine might be bitter, but "they" deserve it.

By the way, I've heard foreign investors are getting returns of 11%, with strings attached, as they attempt to return money to our economy. If your money market account is not delivering similar returns, something is wrong. Perhaps you do not have a genius in charge of your money market account.

The Falling Dollar

First off let me state that I think a portion of the reason Mr Greenspan resigned was because he forsaw the current crisis and he did not want to deal with it. He helped build the house of cards, and he had no idea how to keep it from being blown over.

And into the picture steps Ben Bernanke. He's looking at the mess Greenspan left him and he is looking at a nearly impossible mess to clean up.

Word is (see here) that Bernanke is considering another decrease in the Fed overnight rate to resolve problems he sees in the financial markets.

Is Ben considering the overall impact on worldwide values of the dollar from such a move? He's trying to increase liquidity? Isn't the worldwide market signalling that already too much liquidity exists? Isn't the availability of existing dollars in the market too much without Mr Bernanke throwing additional dollars into the fire?

Mr Bernanke seems to be pursuing a hyperinflationary monetary policy. Some decrease in the value of the dollar is beneficial to the long term health of the American economy. However a freefall value of the dollar is foolish. Mr Benanke is considering adding fuel to the fire with a decrease in the fed rate. Mr Benanke is seeking to provide that everyone in every investment will make money by providing enough dollars for this to happen. Yeah everybody will make money in such a market. Just everybody will also lose in real value in their savings.

The dollar has fallen enough to benefit the American economy. It will take time for the benefit to be realized. Any additional descent could lead to the currency being viewed as worthless. I am not sure the American economy will benefit by sliding back to the barter system. I have plans for dealing with this, however things would be simpler if the dollar retains at least some value.

Mr Bernanke, please do not add fuel to the fire. We need adjustment, however we do not need a fireside sale of the dollar. There is plenty of liquidity of dollars that could be provided by foreign recipients of those dollars.

Who Should Be Vice-President?

OK, I'm entertaining myself by running for President. Truth is, at least as I see it, I am at capable of keeping God tuned in while I do so, so I am going to continue to enjoy myself in this futile attempt to be elected President of the United States of America in 2008.

No other candidate has won God's endorsement! I'm laying claim to that one.

So anyway, I've been thinking about who would I select to be my Vice-President? It did not take me too long to decide on who I preferred, and I am going to include you in on my selection process.

My intention would be to have my Vice-President serve as the second most powerful person in the country. Do people think Dick Cheney wields power in the current administration? Whelp, if I were elected President they would not yet have seen the beginnings of the possible powers of the office as it was manifested in the service of Dick Cheney. If I were to attempt to fulfill the enormous responsibilities of the office I would need some help. I would have to assemble a team of advisers to help me and while other advisers (Cabinet leaders) might be hired and fired, one adviser could be always counted on to always say what they meant because there would be no threat of termination for telling their version of "the awful truth". That adviser would be the constitutionally protected office of Vice-President.

So... if I am going to select a Vice-Presidential candidate, I have to choose wisely. I need someone who will be an asset instead of a burden. If I am going to shoulder all the responsibilities, I need someone who will help me and not hinder me. I will not take into account how many electoral votes I might reap by my selection. Taking such a consideration into account would only result in my having a "traditional" Vice-President who is sent off to his office and told (or at least asked) to shut up. My Vice-President must feel empowered to have a voice of their own and not be afraid to grab his/her share of the bully pulpit to join in the debate.

So, who would I select?

Some time back after taking the question into consideration I came to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton would best serve as my Vice-President. Since then I have had time to reconsider and I am almost delighted that she is faltering somewhat in the polls in certain crucial early primary campaign states. I do not want to be accused of selecting her only because she is the front runner. If she is ground into the dirt, she is still my selection. The lower she sinks in the polls, the better it is for me.

Why? Because she best rounds off and would help me cover some of my own inadequacies (or weaknesses if you prefer). I would not want my selection of her to be dismissed as being a shrewd political move meant to attract votes. I would want the selection to be judged as my attempt to empower me to provide the best governance possible. When I look at the slate of those running for office I see no other that will so successfully round off my rough edges like Hillary could do.

But what if she declines and refuses to play second fiddle?

Well then I have some other names on my list and at least a few you might find surprising.

Thus far, second on my list is Senator Kent Conrad (Dem) from North Dakota. I really appreciate Kent's honest and skillful viewpoint on budgetary matters. While he does not balance out some of my other weaknesses (I could work on that on my own), his voice when it comes to fiscal policies would be invaluable.

Third on my list (with many nipping at his heels) is former Virginia Governor Mark Warner (Dem).

Are there any Republicans on my list? Well, if there had been enough of them, perhaps I would have decided to run as a Republican instead of as a Democrat. If I were forced to draw deep into the pool of potentials, John McCain and my own Virginia Republican Senator (who has announced his pending retirement) John Warner would make the list. Why these two are not higher in the list is due to age issues. Ronald Reagan proved to us that age does matter. (John McCain would have been a fantastic President eight years ago!)

But what about Barak Obama or John Edwards? First off, never John Edwards for reasons I won't go into. Obama? He's a rising star on my list. His proposals on solutions to the Social Security crisis has won him points from me on courage and realism. Early on I dismissed him due to his inexperience, however I am starting to rethink my appraisal of him. However I doubt that he is ever going to rise high enough to top Hillary. But the man is offering evidence that he has a noggin on his neck.

Ron Paul and the Libertarians

I have been intrigued by the Ron Paul candidacy. For those of you not familiar with him, Ron Paul is running for the Republican Party nomination for President. He seems to draw most of his limited support from the Libertarian (I prefer the descriptor Libertine) branch of the Republican Party.

Anyway I came across a comment from a Ron Paul supporter who stated that Mr Paul had a plan to deal with the Social Security crisis that is looming. The crisis that will be caused by the large number of members of the Baby Boom Generation reaching retirement age. I wondered what kind of plan a Libertine would come up with so I went to the Ron Paul campaign website to take a look at the plan the Ron Paul supporter was so proud of.

(See here) where I found Mr Paul's plan. Please note you will not have to read a detailed, multi-volume manifesto or anything, it is fairly short.

The plan description opens with:

Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.

OK, this is a reasonable opening statement. Nothing really controversial here. Who could reasonably disagree that the system is "broken"? I guess one could point out the system is not yet "broke" if Mr Paul, by using the word, meant to convey that the system "already" has run out of money. However that would be quibbling since, even though right now the system has yet to run out of money, it IS headed towards such an outcome before much longer if changes are not enacted... so... it's a pretty good opening statement. It conveys that Ron Paul recognizes that there is a problem and that he is concerned about finding a solution to the problem.

So how would Ron Paul "fix" the problem. Well first we have to listen as he describes what he stands against before he gets to what his proposals would be to solve the problem. In the third paragraph you can read:

The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.

I find this interesting. Seems to me that the only way to fix the Social Security train wreck is to either increase income or reduce outgo, however with just one short sentence Ron Paul has seemed to almost completely empty his toolbox of most of the tools he could use to fix the problem. Well, how then does he propose to fix it? (There might be one almost logical solution.) Let's get into the specifics.

First proposal:

Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.

How in the heck did this one get into a list of proposed solutions to the Social Security crisis, I wondered. It is mostly irrelevant. If one wants to keep the Social Security side of the budget completely separate from the general fiscal federal budget (like Ron Paul seems to want to do, as will be shown later) then this proposal does not belong here. Receipts from taxes on Social Security benefits end up on the general budget side of the ledger and do not impact the solvency of the Social Security side of things one iota. Perhaps one could reasonably make a fair argument that taxing these benefits indeed are unfair (and an also reasonable argument could be made for the opposite) however that debate does not belong in a list of solutions to the Social Security system crisis. My own belief is that Mr Paul included it because it would have some appeal to those most interested in the subject and that would be those who are retired or who are approaching retirement. I would point out to seniors that anyone who is completely dependant on Social Security income when they retire does not currently pay any tax on benefits. Those who are taxed on Social Security benefits have significant sources of retirement income from other sources.

Second proposal:

Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.

I have two points to make on this. First point: If there is, as there has been for awhile, an excess amount of Social Security taxes taken in, what is the harm in the Social Security side of the ledger "loaning" the money to the general budget side of the ledger as long as the money will eventually be repaid? What is the government supposed to do with the money? Build a mountain of greenbacks in some vault until the day the money is needed? Now I do think such loans should be "official" such as in the form of interest paying treasury bills, but it is my understanding that is how this so called "accounting trick" is done anyway. It sure seems like there are conservative investors who prefer the sure and certain return of interest and repayment of principal that is available from treasury bills. Perhaps a higher rate of return is potentially available in the stock market, however that return is not guaranteed. Second point: If nothing is done about the looming Social Security crisis, the amount of Social Security excess receipts is going to quickly dwindle, the system will start to draw down on the amount of money loaned to the general side of the ledger, and then will actually go into the red itself. I do not see how this proposal is, at least this late in the stage of the game, going to have any real impact in avoiding the crisis.

Third proposal:

It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

I guess I have not been listening to enough right wing radio or something because I am not familiar with how illegal immigrants qualify for Social Security benefits if they have not been paying into the system. Seems to me that in order to qualify for a Social Security retirement payment, one must first qualify by having paid in for a certain number of quarters or you get zilch. But perhaps they qualify for disability payments or something so maybe some minor improvement to the looming Social Security deficit could be realized through this proposal. However I am wondering if there is more to this proposal then meets the eye. Would it deny Social Security payments to those who indeed have worked and paid into the system the minimum number of qualifying quarters? You see, I do not look at the "wave" of Latino immigrants as necessarily being part of the problem to the Social Security system and foresee that exploitation of this "wave" could be part of the solution to the problem. The looming Social Security crisis is going to be caused by the population bulge of Baby Boomers retiring. There will not be enough youngsters left paying into the system as the Baby Boom generation retires to support all their elders in retirement. But what happens if numerous young immigrants pay into the system? Wouldn't some of the variables in the equation then be impacted? Now I do not think that this avenue offers any major potential towards resolving the problem. However I do not see how the "Latino tide" makes the problem any worse. It is my opinion that this proposal by Mr Paul is just an attempt to throw red meat to his base. I strongly doubt it is going to contribute in any meaningful way towards solving the problem.

Fourth proposal:

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Now we're getting to some real meat. Ron Paul just threw red meat to this dog. Mr Paul wants to save Social Security by destroying it. He thinks that by making the problem worse (reducing income) he can solve the problem. The man has exposed himself as either a blathering idiot, or a blatant liar. He can not have it both ways. He has to come out for saving the system or abandoning it. This proposal would eliminate any chance of avoiding the Social Security train wreck, and in fact cause the calamity to occur that much earlier. I can understand that there are some who hate the Social Security system when they look through their prism of disliking anything that hints of socialism (it is Social Security as in socialism) but it grates my nerves raw when someone couches proposals that would lay waste to the Social Security system behind words of concern for the welfare of the system. Ron Paul does this.

It is my opinion that adoption of the complete menu of Ron Paul proposals would lead to the rapid insolvency of the system. He voices sentiments of concern for the system, but plans for its destruction. As I stated previously, these proposals expose him as either a blathering idiot, or a blatant liar. But what else would you expect from a Libertine?

Why I Deserve Your Vote

Why I deserve your vote for the office of President.

First, let me state that I realize that by stating my position on the issues I guarantee that I am not going to win the votes of every American citizen. Just by stating a position on some issues will cause a candidate to lose votes. However I am not going to let that stand in the way. If I am going to ask for someones vote (and if you are reading this I am asking you for yours) then I think it is only fair that they (you) know where I stand so that they can make an informed decision.

I believe that my stances on issues will identify me as being the only "true centrist" (or moderate) from either party. I do not come up with this self description by always taking the compromising or centrist fence sitting position on the issues. Some of my stances are right of center and some are left of center. Sometimes my views and opinions almost shift to the extremes of one side or the other. My views are not crafted to appeal to voters or win an election. In fact, my "crazy patchwork quilt" of stances might prove to make me unelectable. So be it. What follows are brief descriptions of my positions.

Abortion: I describe myself as "pro restricted choice". I believe in women's right to choose but I am not adverse to restrictions being placed on this right. I will not go into great detail on my own ideas for what to do about this "problem" here... but let me sum it up by saying that if "both sides" of the extremes of this issue are allowed to "have their way" of zero compromise, then I am going to side with the pro choice crowd.

Gay rights - gay marriage: I am reluctantly tolerant of homosexuals in our society. I am dead set against homosexual marriage. Perhaps the gay crowd would desire to label me "homophobic" and I wouldn't have a problem with this. In fact, I might even grin when this happens, shout out "guilty as charged" and wear the label as a badge of honor. Whenever this issue comes up my argument is going to be "It just is not right. It goes against nature (or God's design if you prefer)."

Gun control: It is my viewpoint that gun control has gone far enough. I believe the reason for the Second Amendment is so that if ever a tyrannical government sprang up in Washington, the Second Amendment was put there so that we could "grab our guns" and march on Washington to throw the bum (or bums) out of office in order to restore our government to the people. I will point to how even the NRA (National Rifle Association) was more willing to compromise on this issue after the massacre at Virginia Tech then I would have been willing to be. However, I am willing to follow the leadership of the NRA on this issue. When they say it is time to compromise I am willing to listen. I do not at present personally own a gun nor does anyone in my immediate household however my right to purchase one if I should desire is one of my most cherished rights.

Global warming - Energy Independence: I believe these two issues are intertwined and thus will speak on them jointly. I will point out that I spoke of the need for America to "break her addiction to oil" before the words were ever uttered by our President, George Dubyah Bush, in his public speech. It is my opinion that the future of America depends on energy independence. At the same time we seek to develop alternative fuels to break our addiction on oil, I think we should simultaneously attempt to reduce green house gas emissions that seem to contribute to global warming. I say "seem" because I am not 100% convinced that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause, or at least the complete cause, for global warming. I do believe that global warming is obvious to anyone who attempts to look at the issue in a reasonable manner. I also bow to all the experts who say that greenhouse gas emissions are, if not the complete cause, then at least a contributing cause, of the warming that is happening. If some, or all, of the warming is due to some other cause, then we can resort to asking for God's help through prayer. However prayer is not the answer when mankind can take steps that could lessen or even alleviate the warming. How does that song go? "God helps those who help themselves."

Fiscal responsibility - Taxes: I am dismayed by those who want to make all of the George Dubyah Bush tax cuts permanent. I am horrified by those like Huckabee who want to replace any semblance of a progressive income tax with a national sales tax (one such proposal is the so called "fair tax") or a flat tax. I also firmly believe in a balanced federal budget being crucial to the long term health and solvency of the American economy. My proposals? I am open to compromise. We either get spending under control or we raise taxes. Truthfully, I am going to state that in order to get a balanced budget through Congress it probably is going to require some of both. However if I were President I would veto any Congressional budget/spending proposals that did not promise to yield a balanced budget within short order without the aid of smoke and mirrors (fancy accounting tricks). There is one area however that I might be willing to compromise because compromise might be necessary. If it could be shown that during the glut of recipients to Social Security benefits caused by the Baby Boom Generation it became necessary for the Social Security side of the budget to borrow money for a relatively short period of time, and if this time period could be shown to be of known and not ever-lasting duration, I might be willing to allow "some" borrowing for this purpose alone. If it could be shown that after this glut of retiring Baby Boomers the system would return to solvency even with accrued interest and repayment of the principal over time, I could budge or compromise. However I would count on fiscal truth tellers like Senator Kent Conrad to keep us (and me) honest.

The War in Iraq: Personally I like the position that Senator Hillary Clinton speaks of when she addresses the subject. She states that we should withdraw quickly but we must withdraw responsibly. If she were elected and delivered on her promise? She would win my eternal gratitude. However I am not sure she can lead us (and the world) in the steps necessary to deliver. Unlike her, I spoke against the War in Iraq before the invasion ever started. Unlike others who spoke in favor of the war and now want to cut and run, I think we must do as best we can to clean up the mess we made. Most worthy of condemnation is the position of Senator Joe Biden who stated he voted for the war to prevent the war. If America is unwilling to stick it out for the hopefully short time required to bring about as good a resolution as humanly possible I say to the impatient that we as a nation can no longer be trusted to wield great power in the world. That we should retreat to "Fortress America" rather then allowing our self to run helter skelter around the world creating situations that result in disaster without being willing to make the sacrifices necessary to yield positive results. Was the Iraq invasion wise? No it was not. For some of the reasons it has been so bad is amongst the reasons why I voiced opposition to the war before we started. One thing that I could promise is that if continuing involvement of American forces is required additional help from forces from other powers in the world are going to be required. Implicit in the request for additional help will be the underlying threat of America withdrawing to Fortress America if such help is not forthcoming. It is my opinion that much of the world will be scared stiff at the mere possibility of such an action and will be forced to follow American leadership on this issue.

Israel - Palestine: Unlike many other Presidential candidates, which seems to include every last one of them running for the Republican nomination, I do not condemn the efforts George Dubyah Bush is making with the talks in Annapolis. If I have any criticism of his efforts it is that "it's about damn time". Unlike others, I applaud the efforts our President is making. I think it is possible to, in a short period of time, bring about a true and lasting peace - OR - prove that one side or the other is so unreasonable in their demands as to make it painfully obvious to any "reasonable" spectator which side is at fault for failure. My only concern is that I am unsure that our President really has an understanding of the numerous issues that would need to be involved in a resolution of the conflict and whether he possesses the leadership qualities necessary to yield positive results. However I am going to cheer him on for even making this attempt. Go Dubyah Go!

Immigration issue: I am rather torn by this one. Both of the extremes on both sides speak "some truth" and I have a great deal of difficulty making up my mind on it. I do not believe that we are any where near the time for "open borders" with Mexico. However I think we could spend sums that would dwarf the amounts spent on the War on Iraq along our southern border with Mexico and not resolve the problem. I think compromise is called for. After the compromise, instead of fortifying the border with Mexico, I would call for making it brutally painful for anyone who was found guilty of willingly offering employment to an illegal immigrant. I do believe that some system of "guest workers" will, through necessity, be part of the compromise. One thing that is painfully obvious to me is that change is necessary. Without change, our nation will be swamped with illegal immigrants. However a knee jerk reaction to "throw the bums out", those bums being all of the illegals already in our society, would be disastrous as well. My own proposal? Finding a compromise solution that quickly allows those already here to stay in one manner or another; whether that be only through a guest worker program or through a path to citizenship. This would quickly be followed with increased enforcement and resulting penalties for those who continue to flaunt the law on the hiring of illegals. With no promise of a job, with no possibility of improvement of their lives, we can stem the tide of illegals into this country. Unlimited (and illegal) immigration into our nation is unsustainable. However controlled immigration of those with a strong work ethic is vital to our long term vitality. I realize this position sounds like a load of mush (or shit) to many. However I stand by my position that every dollar spent on eliminating the magnetic pull of the promise of a job to an illegal immigrant is ten times better then every dollar spent fortifying the southern border. The elimination of job opportunities for illegals rests with threatening the prospects of those who already have everything to lose and that would be those offering the employment opportunities.

Health care: I would like to think that we can come up with an "American Way" of dealing with the health care crisis that is looming on the horizon. Health care costs are spiraling out of control. I am going to attempt to point the finger of blame where the out of control costs rests. It rests with the consumer of these services. As long as consumers are willing to sacrifice their last nickel and mortgage their house for an additional few days of life, providers are going to be willing to provide the services necessary to do so because there is a buck to be made. They have no motivation to provide more economical services because all they have to do is tell you that your life is in danger and then "common sense" flies out the window driven by a fear of death. Let me make my point clear: Society is not required to pay for your expensive medical procedure when it offers minimal potential for long term increased quality of life after you have lived a life of excess. We as a society can not afford it. Many point to socialized medicine as being poor quality medicine. I say that every citizen has the right to poor quality medicine. If you want better quality then what is offered, you have the right to reach into your own pocket and pay for it. I am in favor of any path that leads towards every American citizen getting at least basic health care services provided to them no matter whether they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth or not. Poor quality health care should be the right of every American citizen. If you want additional quality, you have to be willing to pay for it. With reduced demand, with increased personal expenditure required, health care costs might be reigned in. Basic services should be provided; additional services should cost extra. Perhaps we should go down this path slowly in order to prove to the public that the resulting bureaucracy required will not more then consume the cost savings. However other societies have proven that doing some other way then our existing way yields more bang for the buck. I am hopeful that we Americans will not prove ourselves incompetent when it comes to health care.

The above is just the opening salvo in my run for the Presidency. If you like what you heard, there is more to come. If any of it infuriated you? Go find someone else; good luck in your pursuit of the perfect candidate.

Feeble Run for Presidency

My feeble attempt to run for the Office of President of the United States.

Whew, perhaps I can already say it is over. I was given my "sign from God" that I should run for President and I made my feeble attempt. Nothing came of my attempt. Perhaps I should already give up. Thus far perhaps the only thing I might have accomplished is convincing anyone who is aware (perhaps I can take solice in the number of such individuals is rare) of my attempt that I am off my rocker.

Now I am not going to state that I realistically expected to be successful. I will publicly state that as I watched what I requested as a sign become reality, I started to regret the decision. I knew that any attempt to reach the Office of President by someone like me would be futile. That even an attempt to do so would be viewed as a crazy action by at least a majority of our citizens; perhaps such a point of view being nearly unanimous. If I had not been witness to (perhaps "been a personal recipient") of numerous "signs from God" in private prior to this one very public sign, I too would have stated of myself "He's got to be nuts!"

Well, at least I have to admit I did it to myself. I need not have asked for this very public sign that has been given to us. I could have remained mute and just accepted the generosity of God, but I had to insist on asking for more. How does the saying go? "Be careful what you wish (or in this case pray) for, you just might get it ." Now I am, in a sense, obligated to follow a foolish path. What foolish path? "Proving" just how crazy I am by running for President.

But my efforts thus far have yielded absolutely nothing.

Whelp. If I am going to continue with my "feeble" effort I guess I better put a little more effort into campaigning. I can't just throw my hat in the ring and expect everyone to promise to vote for me without identifying why I am the person who deserves that vote.

I am not going to get carried away with it. I am not going to mortgage my house so that I can travel the nation or something lining up support. But I am going to try to make a genuine run for the office. My "genuine run" almost certainly will be way too little. Probably I will not even make a ripple. So be it.

I received my sign and I am now obligated to run.

With my next post I will start with a series of "Why I deserve your vote and how I am different from all the other candidates" posts.

I Will Run for President

Due to the urging of God, I am running for the office of President of the United States.

I have decided that I will attempt this effort first in the Democratic caucus in the state of Iowa. If this attempt is going to be "serious" I need for some volunteers to serve as delegates in the Democratic convention. While I am hopeful that eventually I will find a way to fund such delegates expenses at the convention, I can not promise this. If the snowball starts rolling, I think I can find a way to fund your expenses. But if the snowball melts as it starts, I have to admit that you will be on your own.

"We" need to prove to the Democratic Party that we are a force to be reckoned with in Iowa. We are getting a late start.

Only by coming "out of nowhere" in Iowa can we convince the American electorate that we are a force to be reckoned with.

Why Democrats? Because nearly every person that I would select as vice-President is a Democrat. Because it is easier in the Democrat Party for moderates to swamp "the base" then it is in the Republican Party.

However, if I manage to "steal" the Democratic majority in Iowa I will have proved my metal. With such an effort I will have proven my ability to impact the national vote. The threat will be "me" as the Democrat or "me" as the Independent.

I need help. I need Iowa citizens who are willing to serve as delegates at the Democratic National Convention.

My Sign From God

While the 2007 hurricane season is not officially over until November 30th of this year, I am motivated to claim an endorsement (or sign) from God now. Why am I speaking up now? Because, due to my occupation, I only rarely have access to the Internet while I am on the road.

Now I am going to publicly claim that I have received signs from God privately in the past. These private signs were so amazing that I could not rationally discount them. God exists. He proved his existence to me privately by providing signs I demanded to prove his existence. In an almost selfish action, I asked God to provide YOU with at least just one sign that was as powerful as the multiple signs that he has provided to me. Evidence is that God has granted my request.

God has granted (at least thus far) my request for a public sign.

So it seems I have been granted my very pubic sign by Him who I worship. Now I am obligated to at least attempt to fulfill the action I proposed I would do if I was granted the sign.

What action did I propose? That I would run for the office of President of the United States. Why would I run? Because I want to "save the world" both for mankind and for Him who I worship. Without the "Office of President" I did not see any method of being successful in my agenda. In prayer, all during the hurricane season, I presented my case (some might say argued) to God why it was necessary for me to be President to achieve my (and His) goals.

Actually I am going to be a little bit truthful. As it started to appear that my request for a sign might come to pass, I started to regret my decision. My public request for a sign was at least partially motivated by my request, which I made prior to my public admission of my prior private request.

You see, even if I were to be elected President of the United States of America, I came to the conclusion that I could not "save the world" without God's help. If I were to be successful, that at least without the outward examples of his help, it would be futile to make any attempt in the face of his opposition. I needed a public sign that while God might stand aside as we destroyed ourselves, that if we attempted to save ourselves he might even help us. My sign proves that God is motivated to help us if we are "good". We do not have to be perfect. I am a wretched human being. I am proof that God does not demand perfection.

I am not going to get into an argument over what is "good" from your viewpoint and what is "good" from my own viewpoint. I am only going to point to my "sign from God" and then ask you to point to yours.

I got my sign. And now I am going to run for President. With God's help, success is not guaranteed, but success is an option. Mankind still has freedom of choice and mankind can still choose to turn its back on God.

Decry me if you want, I will point to my sign. If you believe in God, the only rational way to devalue my sign is to describe it as coming from Lucifer or something. If you attempt this I will demolish everything you stand for as coming from the Devil himself. If you are Christian, I am not the anti-Christ. I love Jesus (I call him Rabbi) and will expose how you stand against my spiritual leader and how you stand against if not "everything" then "much" of which he preached in favor of.

I am not going to make God into a circus act. I am not going to stand like a circus magician who rolls up his sleeves and then states: "And for my next act...." for your entertainment.

I am mulling over whether one more "sign" might be necessary for success. Whether mankind (or at least the American citizenship) deserves one more "proof" of the will of God.

Give enough monkeys a typewriter and with an infinite amount of time, one of them will compose Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on it. But if that same monkey, given a new sheet of paper, and he also composes the Declaration of Independence immediately afterward?

Will such a "Second Sign" be necessary? Will God allow it?

Jesus was able to provide many "signs and wonders" to the people of his day. In response to the Saducees, he stated no sign would be given to them. Why? Was it only because Jesus realized that such a sign would only provide "them" with proof he was a demon?

If I request a second "sign" after the first what would it accomplish? Would it make believers out of Evangelical Christians who oppose me? Nope. They will just describe me as the anti-Christ because I do not completely agree with them. But I argue with God that it will provide proof of the supernatural. That at least if "they" do not recognize me as his servant, it would provide proof that a supernatural struggle between good and evil exists.

My own opinion is that "GOD IS GOOD", but He has one hell of a temper. (Have you ever heard of the "Wrath of God"?)

My prayer? Lord, your humble servant is going to achieve the impossible with Your help. You have publicly endorsed my attempts to save the world for mankind and for You. While I ask for your help in this endeavor, I also fear them. Please have mercy on us.

God's will be done.

Annapolis or Apartheid?

Annapolis or Apartheid. An alternate title could have been: Two States for Two Peoples or Apartheid.

Israeli MK Benny Elon is at it again promoting his Israeli Apartheid Plan. Previously labeled "The Elon Peace Plan" Elon is now promoting a warmed over version of the plan which has been retitled the "The Israeli Initiative". An alternative and more easily digested description of the plan can be seen (here) at the Wikipedia website.

The Israeli Initiative is gaining some publicity as an alternative to the "Two Lands for Two Peoples" initiatives that are being pursued by others, including American President George Dubyah Bush and American Secretary of State Condi Rice.

(See here) where a piece authored by MK Benny Elon himself appears on the Jerusalem Post website. The piece also received further publicity as being legitimate when it appeared (here) at the israelinsider website.

(See here) where the Arutz Sheva website reports that at least one senior Israeli Labor party official, Eli Sadan, the head of the Labor party's religious and traditional Jewish sector, is promoting the Israeli Initiative as a "realistic peace plan".

Now let me lift a brief description of the plan from the Arutz Sheva article:

Under the proposal, Jordanian citizenship would be granted to Palestinian Authority Arabs who would remain in their villages in Judea and Samaria. Jewish Israeli citizens would also remain in their communities in the area, which would be under Israeli sovereignty.

Doesn't this echo the actions of the Nationalist Government of South Africa (who's actions coined the term "apartheid") when they enacted the Bantu Homelands Citizens Act of 1970? This act:

Compelled all black people to become a citizen of the homeland that responded to their ethnic group, regardless of whether they'd ever lived there or not, and removed their South African citizenship.

(The above description was lifted from www.about.com [here]).

It is my opinion that the Israeli Initiative can only be described as an apartheid initiative.

It is my opinion that the only thing the Israeli right wing (and their supporters) can come up with as a realistic alternative to "Two Lands for Two Peoples" is apartheid. That the only way they can envision keeping Judea and Samaria without a horrific holocaust style expulsion of Arabs by Jews from the "occupied territories" is through a system of apartheid.

Since the right wing would never agree to annexing Judea and Samaria and granting all the occupants and all the returning Palestinian refugees full citizenship rights, they resort to an apartheid plan that would allow them to remain while denying them the rights of citizenship.

In my opinion it is either Annapolis (and Two Lands for Two Peoples) or it is apartheid.

Now, which side is going to be willing to shoulder the blame for the efforts being undertaken at Annapolis failing (if they fail)? If Israel follows the leadership of Benny Elon, it will be easy to point the finger of blame.

Funding SCHIP

Earlier I posted (see here) the text of my Emails to my Senators in the federal government where I voiced my opposition to funding expansion of SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) through an outrageous increase in tobacco taxes.

Below is the response I received from one of my Senators, that being Senator Warner. I am still awaiting a response from Senator Webb (it is one month and counting).

Dear Mr. Obermark:

Thank you for contacting me to share your views about health insurance for children. I appreciate your thoughtful inquiry.

I have long held the view that it is important for all Americans to have access to high quality healthcare at an affordable cost. While most Americans have access to quality health insurance, particularly through their employer, others turn to federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Still, today, approximately 46 million Americans do not have any form of health coverage. In my view, Congress must examine ways to reduce this number.

Since 1997, one of the most successful programs in reducing the number of uninsured children in this country has been the State Children’s Health Insurance program (SCHIP). This important federal-state partnership, which is supported with $5 billion a year in federal funds, helps expand health insurance coverage to children from low-income families who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid and who do not otherwise have private health insurance. In addition, states have the option of providing coverage to low-income pregnant women.

I am proud to have been a strong supporter of SCHIP when it was passed by the Congress and signed into law in 1997. Currently, SCHIP provides health insurance coverage to 6.6 million low-income children nationwide, including over 80,000 in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Still, it is estimated that more than 2.7 million children are eligible, but for various reasons, not enrolled in the program.

The SCHIP program expired in September 2007; however, the program is currently funded through a continuing resolution which expires December 14th. In order to continue this critical program, Congress must reauthorize the law. Due to increasing costs of health care, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that $14 billion, in addition to the $25 billion in the baseline budget, over five years will be needed to simply cover those children currently enrolled in the SCHIP program.

Consequently, on November 27, 2006, I sent a letter to President Bush requesting an increase in SCHIP funding in his Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) Budget. In addition, on March 21, 2007, I voted in favor of an amendment offered by Senator Baucus to S.Con.Res.21, the Senate Budget Resolution, to increase funding for SCHIP by an additional $15 billion over 5 years. The amendment passed by a vote of 97-1, with my support. On May 17, 2007, the Senate passed the conference report to S.Con.Res.21, which completes work on the FY08 Budget Resolution.

The Senate recently considered legislation, H.R. 976, to reauthorize the SCHIP program beyond September 2007. The bill, which passed the Senate by a vote of 68-31, with my support, retains coverage for the 6.6 billion children currently enrolled in the program, as well as provides funds to enroll an additional 3.3 million uninsured children. To meet these goals, the legislation provides an additional $7 billion a year for children’s health care. The bill also includes several reforms to the SCHIP program in an attempt to ensure that coverage is only provided to children from low income families and low-income pregnant women.

The cost of H.R. 976 is fully paid for through an increase in the federal tax on cigarettes and cigars. While I am supportive of increasing health insurance coverage for children and pregnant mothers from low-income families, I am concerned about relying solely on revenues from new tobacco taxes, which are especially regressive in targeting those who can least afford higher fees. For this reason, I supported a proposal offered by Senator Lott which would increase SCHIP coverage without a corresponding increase in the tobacco tax. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated by a vote of 35-61. During the debate of H.R. 976, I also supported an amendment introduced by Senator Graham that would cause the tobacco tax increase to expire after five years. The Graham amendment, regrettably, was also defeated.

On August 1, 2007, the House of Representatives passed its version of legislation reauthorizing SCHIP. Next, on September 27, 2007, the Senate approved the conference report to the SCHIP legislation by a vote of 67-29, again with my support. On October 3, 2007, H.R.976 was vetoed by the President. To become law, two thirds of all members voting and present in each chamber of Congress must vote to override the President’s veto. Since, H.R.976 was a House-originated bill, the House acted first to override the veto. On October 18, 2007, the House failed to override the veto by a vote of 273-156.

Please be assured that I will be certain to keep your thoughts in mind should H.R.976 or similar legislation come before the full Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

John W. Warner
United States Senator

I am mulling over replying to this response. If I reply, I will post the text.