Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Reflections on Rand Paul's Response to Obama's State of the Union Address

If you have not taken the time to view Rand Paul's rebuttal to the SOTU address, here is a chance.  While I am very quickly approaching the belief that DC is broken beyond repair and we need to revert back to complete State Sovereignty with trade and defense treaties between the States, I support Dr. Paul's ideas....

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Reflections on Rand Paul's Response to Obama's State of the Union Address

Time for Congressional Republicans To Expose Obama's Agenda - David Limbaugh - [page]

I could not agree more!  It is time to change the rhetoric and use the same name-game as the left. 

The 2012 election should never be mentioned without "that was won by a slim majority using the highest rate of voter fraud in the last 100 years" in the same sentence.

Every policy should be referred to as "more of the same tax and spend ideas that got us in this mess".  The words "obession with class warfare" and "punishing success" should always be used when discussing the President's ideology. 

It's time to take the gloves off, these are not nice people who are simply "misguided".  These are people who want to tranform the middle class into a permanent dependent class so that they can be forever threatened with having their government benefits taken away if anyone but Democrats are in power.....

Time for Congressional Republicans To Expose Obama's Agenda - David Limbaugh - [page]

Let's Tax Matt Damon - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 2

How did Matt Damon become so wealthy?  By not paying his fair share.
How did Ben Affleck become so wealthy?  By not paying his fair share!
How did George Clooney become so wealthy?  By not paying his fair share!!
How did Oprah become so uber wealthy?  By not paying her fair share!!!

Let them drink the same poison they want to shove down our throats!!!!

Tax all net worth over $10 Million at 50%
Tax all personal income over $1,000,000 at 75% like our "enlightened French brethren"
Direct all those taxes into Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Then lets see how they vote.....

Let's Tax Matt Damon - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 2

Egypt Protesters Rally in Cairo After Mursi Expands Powers - Bloomberg

Meet the New Boss.  Same as the Old Boss!
Apparently lying about who you really are and what you really stand for is a universal trait among politicians....

Yup, you got fooled again!

Egypt Protesters Rally in Cairo After Mursi Expands Powers - Bloomberg

Jeb Bush Jr. Hopes His Dad Runs for President

This would essentially lock in a 3rd Presidential Term for the Democrats.  The worst thing that ever happened to the Republican party was the Bush family.  Papa Bush was a liberal, Washington insider who couldn't wait to coddle up to the big government tax and spend crowd and reverse all of the progress we had gained over the 8 years of Reagan not to mention opening the door for Bill Clinton.

Bush 43 expanded the role of government in our education system and created a new Medicare Entitlement program before blowing up our budgets on two occupations of Middle East countries in the name of national security.  National security starts with a strong economy, not some idiotic overseas venture in the name of "spreading democracy" to people who really weren't asking for it.

A move to Jeb Bush would signal to the world that Republicans are just another wing of the party of big government.  The Tea Party/Ron Paul/Libertarian faction of the Republican party needs to continue to take over the party away from these inbred elitists just the same way that the Marxists took over the Democrat party.  Only then will Americans have a real choice worthy of voting for.....

Jeb Bush Jr. Hopes His Dad Runs for President

Facing the Fiscal Cliff Solves 77% of the Deficit Problem in One Move – Money Morning - Only the News You Can Profit From

If the Republicrats were smart (and by and large they are not), they would give the President the Tax increases on high income earners that he wants in exchange for FREEZING (not cutting, freezing) all Federal Spending at the 2012 levels for the next 4 YEARS. The freeze would include delay of any further implementation of ObamaCare until 2017.


The rationale is simple; tax hikes will stall the economy and we cannot risk hammering the taxpayers with another 2500 pages of more taxes, regulation and spending until it recovers from this next shock and until the debt curve starts to at least flatten.

Citizens will then see first hand whether or not "taxing the rich" really helps or hurts (or neither) and the Republicans could not be accused of making drastic cuts in the middle of a fragile recovery as 2012 spending levels are way above pre-crisis spending.

Most importantly, they give the President his precious tax increase which he would then own.

As I said, they are not smart enough to do this as I really believe that they'd rather be political punching bags for another 4 years.

Facing the Fiscal Cliff Solves 77% of the Deficit Problem in One Move – Money Morning - Only the News You Can Profit From

How Republicans Can Find Themselves - Katie Kieffer - [page]

These are excellent points in this article.  The only choice we had was to replace a Left-wing, Totalitarian Marxist with a Right-wing Totalitarian Fascist.  In the end, a frustrated country chose to kick the can down the road and "hope" for better choices in 2016.  There is mounting evidence that the Ron Paul wing of the party did in fact stay home last Tuesday in order to show the establishment that they will not win a national election without a strong, grass-roots movement. 

The fact that most of the State-wide measures (other than California) went conservative (see Wisconsin and Michigan) tells you that the country is moving away from DC and want things controlled more and more locally.  republicans will either become less DC establishment or they will become less relevant at the National level.

How Republicans Can Find Themselves - Katie Kieffer - [page]

Charles Hugh Smith: A Sustainable National Healthcare System: Prevention Only

A great piece detailing not only the lie that is our current system but the only realistic form that actually could or should be "nationalized" (I still prefer that all of this be done at the State level). 

The only "yeah but" I would make is what I have now, which is a catastrophic policy with a high deductible as an optional add-on.  For people that want it and can afford it (and it is ridiculously cheap), it would provide coverage for those rare but known occurences like child birth and major-recoverable injury as well as treatment of disease if it is deemed to be curable AND the patient is willing to endure the treatment.

So if you add this together, you end up with a Health Savings Account as many have today, with a base of subsidization for preventive care for lower income individuals and families....what a concept!

oftwominds-Charles Hugh Smith: A Sustainable National Healthcare System: Prevention Only

The Keynesian Rope of Sand: Why World War II Did NOT End the Great Depression

By Tom DiLorenzo


Tuesday, July 10, 2012

So-called Keynesian economics is based on numerous myths and superstitions about the economic world. For example, John Maynard Keynes himself blamed the lack of private business investment spending during the Great Depression on "animal spirits" that supposedly spooked investors. The two biggest myths, however, upon which the whole edifice of the Keynesian "Government Can Spend Us into Prosperity" philosophy is based are: 1) the myth that government spending under President Franklin D. Roosevelt ended the Great Depression; and 2) If the Depression was not totally ended by New Deal spending, then government spending on World War II certainly must have done the trick. Exactly the opposite is true: New Deal and World War II spending made the U.S. economy worse off by siphoning off billions of dollars from the pockets and bank accounts of private consumers and investors. Government bureaucracy ballooned while the private sector starved. Only when the war was over, government spending was cut dramatically, and FDR was dead, did the private economy in the U.S. recover from the Great Depression.

Despite a doubling of federal government expenditures from 1933 to 1940, the creation of dozens of new federal government bureaucracies, and the direct employment of some ten million people in "public works" jobs, the official unemployment rate in 1939 was still 17.2 percent, nearly six times higher than it was in 1929 (2.9 percent) on the eve of the Depression. Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 ($847) than in 1929 ($857), as were personal consumption expenditures -- $67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the United States).

One reason for the abject failure of the New Deal "stimulus spending" to reduce unemployment is that the diversion of billions of dollars out of private-sector pockets to finance government make-work jobs created additional unemployment in the private sector. More temporary, make-work government jobs were created at the expense of destroying a much larger number of private-sector jobs since bureaucracy and red tape typically accounts for several times the amount of money that is spent on salaries alone. It is not unusual to read today that it costs several hundred thousand dollars to "create" a single $30,000/year government job.

World War II did end unemployment in America, but only because more than 11.5 million men were drafted into the military whereas the total number of Americans unemployed as of 1940, on the eve of the war, was 5.3 million. In addition, millions more volunteered for the military to "beat the draft" because they knew that draftees were most likely to serve on the front lines than volunteers were.

The average American consumer was worse off during World War II because of the massive diversion of economic resources from the consumer economy to the war economy and the dramatic increase in taxes. By 1945 the top income tax bracket was 94 percent on an annual income of $200,000. The lowest income tax bracket was 23 percent on an annual income of $2000. There was nothing to buy, and even basic food and clothing items were rationed by the government. So despite an explosion of total federal government spending during the war years, the average American at home was still living in a depression economy worse than 1939/1940.

At the end of the war every Keynesian economist predicted an even worse economic depression because of the demobilization of the military and the accompanying radical reductions in government spending. The reductions in government spending were indeed dramatic: According to the Commerce Department's Historical Statistics of the United States, federal government expenditures fell from $98.4 billion in 1945 to $33 billion in 1948, about a two-thirds reduction. Far from creating a depression, prying all of that money from the hands of politicians and bureaucrats and returning it to its owners – working Americans – created the largest increase in private sector economic growth in all of American history in 1946. According to statistics found in the 1995 Annual Report of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, based on Commerce Department data, real inflation-adjusted private sector GDP increased by 29.5 percent in that year. In no other year has the U.S. economy ever grown even half that fast. Private investment skyrocketed and stock prices soared, in complete and total contradiction of what every Keynesian economist in the world had been predicting. Yet thanks to the power of government propaganda, and the state's academic mouthpieces (Paul Krugman comes to mind), the myth persists that government spending during World War II is "proof" that government can spend us into prosperity.

Thomas DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a member of the senior faculty of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Among his books are How Capitalism Saved America; Hamilton's Curse; and his forthcoming Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government.
To receive daily news from the Project to Restore America as well as a free copy of the one book Ron Paul suggested all Americans should read, click the Link



The Project To Restore America

The Corruption of Politics

This is a very powerful piece by Porter Stansberry.  If you agree with what he is saying, then I urge you to sign up for the free S&A digest and join us in the project to Restore America...

The Corruption of Politics


By Porter Stansberry

Let me show you the numbers – the hard facts – behind what's happened to our country…

I'll start with one of the biggest factors in the decline of our civilization – the link between welfare, education, crime, and politics.

It is routinely alleged in national political debates that something is fundamentally unfair and un-American about the huge "wealth gap" between the poorest Americans and the wealthiest. Some politicians like to argue that the poor never have a real shot at the American dream… And as a nation, we owe them more and more of our resources to correct this injustice. Most important, it is alleged that only the government has the resources to correct this inequality.

This is a dangerous notion…

First, it promotes the idea of entitlement. Entitlement is a fairly new idea in the American political lexicon – perhaps because most of our nation's wealth is still fairly new. The American idea of entitlement argues that because you were born into a rich society, other people owe you something. The idea has become pervasive in our culture. It underlies the basic assumptions behind the idea of a "wealth gap." Implicit is the assumption that successful Americans haven't rightfully earned their wealth… that in one way or another, they've taken advantage of society and have an obligation to give back most of what they've "taken."

I believe the idea of entitlement lies at the root of many of our most serious cultural problems.

The more obvious problem is the idea that the government is responsible for fixing the "wealth gap." But the government has proved wholly ineffective at dealing with poverty in America. The data is nearly conclusive that government efforts are far more likely to be the cause of the wealth gap than the solution.

The simple fact is, the government has to take resources from someone before it can dole them out to others. And this act of taking is economically destructive. It reduces the market's incentives for entrepreneurs. The more you take from the productive members of society, the less productive they become. That's the primary lesson of the history of socialism. Yet… many of our political leaders seem oblivious to this iron law of human nature.

Consider a simple analysis that compares the unemployment rate with the size of the federal government's spending, as measured against GDP. (We created this chart after reading a similar analysis at Mark Perry's excellent financial blog, Carpe Diem.)



As you can see in this chart, the larger the government grows as a percentage of our economy, the higher unemployment rises. The more government, the less opportunity. These figures are similar when studied comparatively across many different countries.

We also know from decades of experience that little of the government's funding for the poor will ever reach those who are actually in need. Instead, these kinds of socialist policies end up sending billions of dollars into the hands of unions, "community organizers," and other sponsors of the Democratic Party. This tightens their political control of America's inner cities, which have become the source of our country's most intractable social problems.

Believe me, I have reams of data and decades of case studies for these conclusions. But before we get to my proof, I want you to simply assume that what I'm saying is 100% correct. Assume most of the government's social spending ends up corrupting the politics of the inner city. Assume these efforts actually make the "wealth gap" larger. Assume these policies and the politicians who sponsor them are actually creating a society of complete dependence, where the spread of ignorance has created entire generations of people who aren't educated enough to know they've been enslaved by their own leaders.

If these things are true, if my conclusions are exactly right, what would America's poorest communities look like today?

It has now been almost 50 years since the start of the War on Poverty, President Lyndon Johnson's program to radically increase domestic welfare spending. These programs and their various spinoffs have been at the center of Democratic politics ever since. In fact, if you compare speeches about these programs from the mid-1960s until today, you will find the verbiage never changes. Obama is merely echoing the same calls for "social justice" that Robert Kennedy used in his ill-fated 1968 campaign for president.

But besides the soaring rhetoric – besides the promise of a "chicken in every pot" – what have these programs actually achieved? The wholesale destruction of urban communities across America… communities that are overwhelmingly African American. If the intention of these programs had been to destroy black communities, you could have hardly done more damage than the last 50 years of Democratic policy.

I don't think most Americans realize how dangerous these communities have become or the toll they take on our country as a whole. That's primarily because talking about this problem is seen as racist. That's complete nonsense. The victims of these policies are primarily black people. Trying to help them restore dignity and independence to their communities isn't a racist goal. It's humanitarian.

And let me offer a prediction… Sooner or later, the people in these communities are going to finally point their finger at the politicians who've lied and pandered to them for decades, all while stealing from them at every turn. When that moment comes, having a track record of correctly speaking out about the real nature of these problems will be a valuable political asset…

Let me give you some of the numbers that define the enormous scope of these problems.

According to the NAACP, Texas taxpayers spent $175 million in 2009 to imprison residents from a small part of Houston – only 10 zip codes out of 75. Thus, people from neighborhoods that are home to only about 10% of the city's population account for more than 33% of the state's entire $500 million annual prison spending. These neighborhoods are overwhelmingly poor and African American.

In Pennsylvania, taxpayers spent $290 million in 2009 to imprison residents from just 11 of Philadelphia's neighborhoods, representing about 25% of the city's population. On this relatively small urban area, the state spent roughly half its $500 million prison budget. These neighborhoods are overwhelmingly poor and African American.

In New York, taxpayers spent $539 million to imprison residents from only 24 of New York City's 200 different neighborhoods. Only 16% of the city's population lives in these areas, but they account for nearly half of the state's $1.1 billion prison budget. These neighborhoods are overwhelmingly poor and African American.

America has many problems… but these neighborhoods represent more than a society in decline. Life in these places reflects a complete collapse of Western civilization. What's happening in these communities? A breakdown of the family and the resulting collapse of the school system. What you have left is crime – violent and political.

In Detroit, only 27% of the black male students in the school system graduate from high school. This is not a racial problem: Only 19% of the white male students graduate from those same schools. What's causing this problem? A complete breakdown of society. When communities can no longer teach their children the most basic academic skills, such as reading, math, history, literature, and economics… what future can we expect? And what kind of society do you expect after several generations of total ignorance?

What opportunities are available in America to people without even a basic education? The New York Times reports almost 70% of black males without a high school diploma are unemployed in the United States.

In many predominantly black, urban communities, the actual unemployment rate is close to 100% for young dropouts. Given these figures, it isn't surprising that many of these people end up in jail.

According to various studies, black males who dropped out of school by age 16 are four times more likely to end up in jail than those who remained in school. Crime is literally all they know. Likewise, a black youth whose mother was a high school dropout is 88% more likely to end up in jail. These are the two primary reasons nearly one in 11 adult black men are either in jail or on parole.

How did this all happen? How did we end up with expensive schools that can't teach? How did we end up with young mothers who aren't married? How did we end up with entire generations of people who won't – and probably can't – work in the labor force? How did we end up with a skyrocketing prison population? The prison population in America has soared from less than half a million people in 1980 to more than 2.5 million people today. More than seven million adults are in prison or on parole in the United States. We have an incarceration rate that's seven times higher than any other industrialized nation.

The land of the free?

Let's ask the most basic question: What has the gigantic increase in welfare spending and education spending done for the underclass of America? It seems apparent that growth in federal spending has caused far more harm than good. When you study these neighborhoods, what you find is a horrifying story that's been repeated, generation after generation since the early 1960s. It's a story of families who have been destroyed by their dependency on the state.

Americans Are Being Prepared For Full Spectrum Tyranny

Great post.  What is scary is the number of people I speak with who are already conditioned.  They accept a premise that 30 years ago would have been considered outrageous.  We've been in the pot of water for about 100 years, the Democrats get in power and start cranking on the heat, when we squawk, the Republicans come in and turn the heat down a bit.  Make no mistake, the only President in my life time who tried to take us out of the pot was Reagan (which is why he was so hated by the DC Republicans).  Most of the Republicans since then have only tried to convince us that the pot doesn't exist...and the Democrats....they try to convince us that the heat is global warming and it's our fault.....

Americans Are Being Prepared For Full Spectrum Tyranny

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: You Don’t Need to be a Lefty to Support Krugman (You Just Need to be Economically Illiterate)

Great piece by Mike Shedlock.  Paul Krugman is like a doctor who misdiagnoses a patient and then doubles down on the treatment when the initial attempt fails.  We have never run up so much government spending so fast, the "one-time" stimulus package has been in effect every year since the Democrats controlling the Senate refuse to pass a budget and instead just maintain stimulus-level spending through their on-going resolutions.

What makes that so maddening is that tax revenue is now back up to pre-crisis levels (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/state-tax-revenues_n_1437986.html?ref=business), meaning that the deficit problem is all on the spending side with repsect to where we were before the housing bubble burst.


Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: You Don’t Need to be a Lefty to Support Krugman (You Just Need to be Economically Illiterate)

Iceland Is Hot - Bill O'Reilly - Townhall Conservative Columnists

I'm not a big O'Reilly fan, but this article is pretty good.  Iceland is probably close to the socialist utopia of the Left and it works because of the incredibly small population that is extremely homogeneous, unlike our vast melting pot of 300 million.  Here you can't even expect our citizens to speak proper english without being called a racist and those that do try to learn are labeled as sellouts.  America was always proud to be the land of opportunity, if you want to trade your liberty for "social security", there are plenty of other places willing to take you and your money....

Iceland Is Hot - Bill O'Reilly - Townhall Conservative Columnists

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND « The Burning Platform

This is a controversial post as the author sites a violent revolt that occurred in Russia during the 1920's then draws parallels with what has happened in our country over the last 4 years.  Anybody who has read my past posts knows that I am not a fan of Republicans nor Democrats and do not think that Obama is much worse than the Bush family.  Both sides have been building a mote around DC and concentrating more power within the centralized ruling class in Washington and it must be stopped.  However, unlike the author, I tend to focus on the solutions written into the Constitution that have been largely forgotten or ignored by the populace.

The key in every election is to take control of the State governments.  In doing so, we can move to nullify DC in moves similar to what we are seeing in Texas, Indiana and now Wisconsin.  Ohio has already voted to ignore ObamaCare as should the rest of the States involved in the Supreme Court decision.  Right now, DC simply threatens to withhold money from the States if they don't obey, however the States can also withhold money from DC in much the same way.  A strong and cohesive band of Governors can move very effectively to start limiting DC's influence on the citizens of this country.  Something that would be much more preferable than taking up arms against our neighbors....

 THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND « The Burning Platform

Compassion – Killer of Society? - Casey Research

There is not much to add to this opinion piece.  The author nails the compassionate totalitarians and their never ending trail of failure and misery...
Compassion – Killer of Society? - Casey Research

The Recall Heard Around the World - Ann Coulter - Townhall Conservative Columnists

Not much more needs to be said.  I have long questioned the legality of a public service employee being able to organize against his neighbor.  There are no checks and balances to make sure that any contracts are negotiated in good faith with anyone representing the best interests of the tax payer. 

During boom times, people are busy and the process is pretty much ignored, but during down turns, all the rocks along the bottom of the stream get exposed.  When the average citizen is forced to give up money that he/she could save toward retirement in order to pay for people to retire at 55 with income and benefits that exceed what that citizen is even earning today......people are going to react. 

Greed goes both ways and the people of Wisconsin were pushed too far....

The Recall Heard Around the World - Ann Coulter - Townhall Conservative Columnists

The Revolution Was: To Seize Economic Power

This is a long read but well worth it if you want to understand the root of what's going on today.  Just like Nancy Pelosi did with health care, Woodrow Wilson "kicked in the door" of the American economy by enabling the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax and by eliminating true State representation and replacing it with party representation via the 17th amendment.

The idea, as with all statists was to use the economic energy of the American Economy to fuel it's own journey to serfdom while creating a ruling class that could hide behind the idea of elections while maintaining and growing it's power through the years.

While Woodrow Wilson was the God-father of the statist revolution, FDR will go down in history as one of its most effective generals...

The Revolution Was: To Seize Economic Power

Why Pensions for Public Workers Bankrupt the States

My neighbors are a teacher and a fireman and they are up in arms because the state of Wisconsin passed a law that forced them (actually the teacher, not the fireman) to start contributing to their pensions and toward the cost of their health insurance policies.

One day their younger daughter asked me to explain what was going on and so I gave her this explanation.

"Let's pretend that your father hires me to cut his lawn every week for $20 and that for the next 10 years I perform this service for him at a rate that is in line with inflation.  Now at the end of those 10 years I inform him that I am going to retire, but that my nephew will be taking over the business and continue to perform that duty.  Now at the time I retire, I'm charging him $25 per week. 

The first time my nephew cuts his lawn, he gives your father the bill and it is for $45.  When your father asks why he is charging so much, my nephew explains that according to my agreement with him, I am to receive 80% of what I was charging as a pension for the rest of my life and 80% of $25 is $20.  Plus, my nephew has to make a living and there is a cost to providing this service so he still needs $25 per week, so the cost is now $45.

This is exactly what is going on in the private sector, a teacher or fireman or whoever is retiring (early) and getting a high % of their highest earning years as a pension, plus getting their health insurance paid for as well.  But the municipality has to still provide the service and under their contract, the replacement will come in with a just slightly lower cost (initially).  So the municipality must cover the cost of the retired public worker plus the cost of the replacement.  Since municipalities derive their revenue from taxes and fees, they naturally must raise them to stay solvent. 

So the private citizens have to pay an ever-expanding pool of current and retired public workers, while they themselves are trying to put away money for their own retirement which won't be covered by public money.  The math simply does not work (I must add here that I believe this is why schools focus more on teaching "fairness" and "need" instead of basic math)."

She asked me why her parents didn't understand this and I told her that I could not answer that question, but given the voting patterns of the country, they were not the only ones who didn't understand....

The Student Loan Crisis

Yesterday the President was out on the campaign trail drumming up support for congress to extend a lower interest rate for current student loans as of July of this year.  The action is required because the Democrat-controlled congress of which Obama was part of, passed the bill lowering the interest rate in 2007 with a sunset clause that was coincidentally smack dab in the middle of a Presidential campaign.

This is now ramping up rumors that if the President is still in trouble nearing the election, he will propose that we "forgive" all outstanding student loans outright, which would end up being the highest price for buying votes in the history of this country.

The problem we then face is that, these loans, along with the principle and interest we expect to receive are on the books and are part of the federal budget.  Forgiving them would put another huge hole in our projected deficit and I'm sure would elicit an unpleasurable response from those who either worked their way through college, or in fact paid off their student loans already.  So how to we cover the cash drain from forgiving this debt?

If the Republicans were smart (and every day it is more obvious that they're not), they would focus on the true cause of the student debt bubble, which is the un-justified rise in the cost of college education.  Most of these top universities that have been wilfully charging these bloated rates have huge endowment funds just "sitting there" (as the left likes to say about rich peoples savings).  My advice would be to ramp up support for a special tax on "big education", targeting those endowment funds (which are made up of donations from wealthy alumni) to pay off those loans that were racked up because their ridiculously high tuition rates in the first place.

Since "big education" is almost entirely in support of democrats, there is little risk of loss of votes or campaign monies in pitting big education against the middle class who would end up getting stuck with the bill if the loans were simply forgiven without some sort of off-setting revenue....

Open Letter to the Chief Confidence Officer of the United States of America

This posting is a great contrast between the choices we make individually with our private resources and the "moral" decisions being made in Washington with other peoples money...


Open Letter to the Chief Confidence Officer of the United States of America