With Unemployment Rising, Is It Time to Stop Hiring Foreign Workers?

This is the time when anger about the sorry state of affairs for many unemployed or soon to be laid off American workers causes sever misplaced anger towards foreign workers and immigrants. It is worth noting that it is not the fault of these foreign workers who just like many of us want to make a decent living and have no intent whatsoever to cause suffering to anyone. The economic conditions under which companies operate dictate on the type of labor hired. Naturally, companies will seek the cheapest labor possible, and if American labor has become too expensive these companies will outsource. It is not fair for government to interfere in the market and dictate what type of labor needs to be hired because it does not mitigate unemployment risk at all. Seeing how prices and wages are related and a function of supply-demand, introducing any restrictions in the labor market will cause further depression of wages and lower labor demand.

The Senate passed a bill placing restrictions on banks which have received TARP money and who hire foreign workers:

Senate approves restriction on foreign hires

The Senate voted Friday to restrict the hiring of foreign workers by banks that are receiving government bailout funds while undergoing vast layoffs.

The legislation by Sens. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, would require the banks to seek American workers before turning to foreign nationals when they're hiring. It aims to prevent replacement of Americans by foreigners working under the H-1B visa program, which allows employers to bring in workers for high-skilled and advanced-degree jobs.

The measure has a two-year life and if signed into law would apply to the more than 300 banks that are receiving money from the taxpayer-funded Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The Senate added the restriction as part of the massive economic stimulus package lawmakers are crafting as part of President Barack Obama's plan to reinvigorate the economy.

If it becomes law, banks seeking visas to bring in foreign workers would be barred from displacing or replacing American employees for three months before and three months after petitioning the government for the visas.

...

Partial data from the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services suggests that the banks ultimately got visas for only about one-quarter of the number of workers they initially sought permission to employ. For example, the banks and their subsidiaries filed more than 5,000 visa applications with Labor Department officials during the 2006 budget year. After that step, they ended up with about 1,200 new workers approved by the Citizenship and Immigration agency.

From: AP

I would imagine that left alone banks would seek the cheapest labor possible. Given the current state of the economy and job market with unemployment surpassing 7% and climbing, it is only natural that wages will go down as long as prices remain depressed.

$2 Trillion Bet

In a feeble attempt at staving off what looks to be a pretty solid recession and restart the economy the Federal Government is planning to go on a spending spree. There's just one thing: the government is illiquid!

The prevailing belief in the Obama administration, and backed by the the Democratic controlled House as well as the Senate, is that pumping large amounts of cash into the economy in a myriad of senseless projects will prove to be the magic bullet. Dr. McTeer, previous president of the Dallas Federal Reserve, rightly notes that this current attempt at fixing the economy is akin to going wild hog hunting with a shotgun.

Secretary Geithner said he wants to spend upwards of $2 trillion to stabilize the private sector, mainly the banking sector, while the Senate was passing the Stimulus Act. Unfortunately for us Secretary Geithner is placing too much faith on the forecasting models his department is populating. The question that should be asked, however, is where is the Treasury going to find this money? If his department is forecasting an increase in government expenditure to stimulate the private sector, hence the economy, the money has to come either from the government borrowing, or increase the collection of taxes. Given that investment is hardly stimulated by an increase in taxes, and if the general economic model of supply-demand holds true, government can hardly afford to increase spending to generate growth while either borrowing or increasing taxes.

Additionally, there is no guarantee that the very large amounts of spending can be effective. The government would be falling into the exact same trap the financial services found themselves in. In effect, it would be over-leveraging its self. Ultimately, the taxpayers will be the ones who will suffer most, who unlike corporations, cannot reorganize financially as easily.

Dutch Politician to Be Charged with Incitement of Hatred and Discrimination

From BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged

Geert Wilders lives under police protection because of death threats

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression".

"Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said.

Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned.

"Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.

'Incitement'

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.

I often marvel at the ideology of many Europeans especially as it concerns hate speech and discrimination. Every time I hear a European complain that America has become unjust, bigoted, and so forth, I think of all the stupidity of hypocrisy which enshrouds continental Europe.

This latest attempt by a liberal court to silence conservative voices is ridiculous. Have they ever considered that the Muslim call to jihad is hatred and discrimination? Do they ever think that chanting "Down with America," "Down with Britain," "Down with Israel" is not to be considered hateful speech?

I know what this is. This is liberal political maneuvering guised as legal ideology. It's amazing this type of thinking hasn't reached the American shores. Or has it?

One of pres. Obama's executive orders was to order Gitmo closed. While that might appeal to the liberal talking heads, one has to wonder where these people will wind up? Granted, torture is bad. But so is war. So is jihad against Americans. Are we to sit quietly and not defend ourselves? Why should we refrain from protecting our own? As intelligent beings all of humanity is not even close to the ideal being, where peace and love is the norm - no matter how cliche that might sound.

These recent events remind me of the political and ideological garbage the communist party used to spew out each day in defiance of reason.

Ugh, Global Warming Debate is Getting Annoying

First, I would like to say that although I am skeptical of the Global Warming hysteria (um Al Gore anyone?!), I do believe that we are heading towards a climate change event. Specifically, according to Dr. Scotese we are on the up-swing towards global warming which will lead to global cooling. Thing is, his chart has it occurring for the next 10,000 years before we peak.

Yes, global warming may cause an ice age. And if the oceans are indeed cooling, due to perhaps melting ice caps, it is possible to trigger an ice house effect. I do believe that climate change is possible within our life time. The cooling oceans could slow down and eventually stop the Gulf Stream, the conveyor belt which regulates global temperature. See here.

Without going into technical details, the gulf stream carries heat (in water) from the equator and moves it towards the north pole. To give you an idea of how think of where hurricanes originate - from the equatorial latitudes and move northwards towards North America. Given global warming, an introduction of cold water from the melting polar ice caps will slow down the gulf stream conveyor because there is less warm water to move (cold water sinks so it doesn't flow) and eventually the conveyor runs out of energy. Global cooling gets complicated but this conveyor stream also causes warm air to move northwards as well. Stopping this conveyor system means there is no way to move warm air northwards and the temperatures drop, the ice sheets thicken and eventually advance. New York eventually rests under 600 feet of glacier ice. Thus begins the ice age because of global warming.

This whole alarmist bs about human caused global warming may very well be a crock. Fortunately for us, the global warming crowd bears the burden of proof, but given the unique event of their claims (human accelerated global warming) it will be very difficult for them to prove that we are the culprits for global warming. If you took a look at the map at Dr. Scotese's website you will notice we already are on the upswing of warming global temperatures.

One can also refer to the Little Ice Age which occurred during the Middle Ages. Why isn't the global warming crowd blaming this event on humanity? After all, weren't Medieval societies agrarian raising large numbers of domestic animals which could theoretically induce global warming from their "methane emissions?" I swear, every time someone talks about how we are causing global warming I just want to fart and say "Ooops, I just melted 1 cubic yard of polar ice!"

The 44th President of the United States of America

'I've never really been into any inauguration until now. It speaks volumes that so many people are out here, witnessing this event, Obama is somebody who gives us hope for the future,' said Anthony Randolph, 28, an unemployed African-American from Brooklyn."

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50J6VP20090120

I agree with his emotional assessment but I'm not sure that everyone can agree that Obama gives hope for the future to everyone. Many of us recognize the importance of this day, but we have to be cautious about an untested and unproven young senator who today assumed the role of the leader of the free world. Whatever our political views we can be proud of one fact, at the very least: America has its first black president.

There are no nations in the Western world which can boast as much as we can. For all the rhetoric of France and liberals elsewhere, they remain the most prejudiced of peoples as of yet. They have never elected a minority of any kind to a position of ultimate leadership. What will they have to gripe about now? It's official, Europeans today have lost the moral high ground. Today America has once again showed the world that even for its imperfections it is still the nation those yearning for freedom must follow.

Left Wing Lunacy

It took president Bush nearly a year to admit that we are in a recession. Irregardless of when recession began, it is undeniable that we are in a financial crisis, a crisis which spans industries as the recent request for emergency loans by the three big national auto makers can attest to. Along the way some facets of American manufacturing beginning to succumb to the downard financial pressures and it is likely the numbers of failing companies will grow large in the future. The people are angry, understandably so, especially when we are asked yet again to save another industry with public funds.

Now, the governor of Illinois, democrat Rod Blagojevich, is involving the state in a dispute between a window and door-making company and its union, after the company decided to close its doors and reneg on the retirement packages after being denied a line of credit by Bank of America, N.A. Rather than offer a real solution, the Illionois governor has attacked Bank of America for its unwillingness to provide a lince of credit to a failing business, citing the bank's acceptance of $25 billion of the financial bailout package.

Illinois governor cuts off Bank of America after Chicago factory-worker sit-in

Showing solidarity with workers staging a sit-in over unpaid wages at a dying Chicago factory, Illinois' governor Monday lashed out at the bank that cut off the firm's funding.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich told all state agencies to suspend business with Bank of America immediately.

He said some of the billions in bailout money the bank got from taxpayers to stay afloat should be used to pay the workers' severance and accrued vacation.

Bank of America, which does billions in business with Illinois, had no immediate comment.

Cheers erupted at the shuttered Republic Windows and Doors, factory where 200 workers have been holed up all weekend, after the governor's announcement.

The workers — many of whom have toiled for the company for years — have refused to leave until they get the parting package they were promised.

In refusing to budge, they have become national symbols for the thousands of other American workers who have been pink-slipped as the economy sours.

"We never expected this," said factory worker Melvin Maclin, vice president of the union local that represents the workers. "We expected to go to jail."

...

After the unionized employees staged this sit in, Bank of America representatives, company representatives, and union leaders have agreed to meet and dicuss any options available. Thanks to the arm twisting of gov. Blagojevich who is portraying the bank as the villain, not the company executives, or the union for that matter. This type of interfernce is quite similar to the government's enactment of the Credit Reinvestment Act which forced banks to lend to people with high credit risk, albeit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Why should a business, who may not have needed to take the bailout money, should be penalized for not wanting to take a risk in lending to a company which may not be able to repay any of its loans? Unfortunately, the top four banks which did not need any bailout funds were forced to take these funds by the Paulson plan, seeing how consesus in the financial industry was key to the bailout plan's success. In essence, the banks would be forced to share the same burden to ensure that no one bank would monpolize the industry.

Some things just don't make sense. I used to see unions in a different light before all this, given my relative young age, but now unions seems to be part of the problem in American industries. These unions have done a diservice to the people they represent by forcing an increase in company fixed costs specifically in artificially higher wages than the markets would offer and long -term retirement packages.

Yet in the grand scheme of things, Bank of America can afford not to do business in Illinois. The question is, can Illionis afford not to do business with Bank of America? If they strongarm a bank of that size, I wonder what other banks gov. Blagojevich will threaten? For a regional economy to do well, as is the case in the state of Texas, businesses must be left to their own devices. While the Texas economy has prospered for the past decade, many midwestern economies have declined. Among many properties Texas is a right-to-work state, with union memebership being much lower than in other states, all the while being a business friendly state. Unfortunately for us Texans and other well to do states, we will wind up paying for the follies of our midwestern states.

Today I made an Obama Supporter Cry

I am ashamed to say that today I made an Obama supporter cry. I'm not proud of it. But, I confess: I was getting a little irritated with her and I guess deep down I must have awakened my bad mean self. Let me tell you why.

We're sitting around a round table in the student lunch break. She came in wearing an Obama shirt, and I found that detail amusing because just last week she claimed that she was a Republican. Today, she had changed her mind. So I laughed and she wanted to know if it had anything to do with her shirt. From then on, she tried to defend her decision, with which I was fine. Until she decided to attack John McCain's proposed tax policy and purported that Obama is right to spread the wealth around, after all don't we all want to help people? Well, I'm okay with helping people, and I always do, but I'd rather do it my way than have someone tell me how to do it marginally more than I am required to already. So I try to logically demonstrate why any upward change of the marginal tax rate is a bad idea, but she won't budge. So I asked her if she would be upset if her tax withholdings increased and tax deductions decreased? Imagine my surprise when she told me that she doesn't work, nor has she ever! What the hell? I guess she is okay to have her parents' and our tax money get redistributed at a proportionally higher rate than before?

Did she stop there? Nope. She had the gal to complain about McCain's proposed health care credit and de-regulation of the health insurance industry. I guess we don't care for sick people who cannot afford their medication. Somehow Obama is going to force pharmaceutical companies to absorb the majority of the research costs and retail. Right! We conservatives are such heartless people.

When she complained that McCain is too old and if elected he might just pass away I had had enough. So I remarked that the voting age needs to be increased to 21 to avoid having a percentage of the eligible voters who are so gullible and idealistic they would vote 50Cent in office. Yeah, she took offense to this, got visibly upset and started crying. Everyone around me started complaining that my comments were out of line, considering many 18-21 year olds serve in the armed forces and thus have earned the right to vote. I concede the point, so I'll compromise here to propose that the minimum voting age be changed to 21, except for those who are serving in the armed forces. How can we have a prosperous society when we have these college aged kids who have been told that they are unique and entitled to an opinion. I was 18-21 and I admit I was idealistic, stupid, and irresponsible. Ugh!

Polls Are the Root of All Evil (Sort Of...)

I was just reading an optimistic post claiming that McCain will win by landslide. I share the poster's optimism, but I think McCain has a low probability of winning by a landslide but has a moderate probability of winning. Republicans and conservatives in general are getting more hopeful the closer we are to November 4^th, especially given how John McCain is closing the gap in the multitude of polls to within the margin of error. That means that Jonh McCain may win or lose by 3-4 percentage points in most cases. During past elections a trend has been established as the poster on EarthFrisk.com points out:

• 2004 - Bush wins over Kerry 50.7 to 48.3 percent. Bush was behind by 6 points, but won by 2 (margin of error to within 4 points)
  
• 2000 - Bush wins over Gore 48 to 48 percent. Well, this was really a tie, but Bush was behind in the polls by 3 points
• 1996 - Clinton wins over Dole 49 to 40. A few days before election Bush was behind in the polls by 9 points. Yet again, Ross Perot absorbed a lot of the Republican votes which would've otherwise gone to Dole
  
• 1992 - Clinton wins over Bush (senior) 43.01 to 37.45 percent. In the polls Bush was behind by 12 points. Ross Perot absorbs a lot of the Republican votes which would've otherwise gone to Bush
• 1988 - Bush (senior) wins over Dukakis 53.4 to 45.6 percent. In the polls, Bush was behind by 16 points.

Although a trend can be discerned, one can hardly make a sound decision on the current election cycle. I do not agree either one of the candidates will be able to win by a landslide - not in this very divided electorate. A major factor in this year's election is the young vote and the black vote, both of which are important because of their magnitude of impact on both campaigns. If we are to believe the various polls, impromptu or otherwise, around 90 percent of the black vote will go to Obama. But the impact of this segment of the population which has been lobbied to very heavily, and won by, the Obama campaign comprises only 12.8 percent of the population, or 38 million African-Americans in the US. But the number of eligible black voters is further reduced by eligibility requirements such as age, registration status, and citizenship among other factors.

Another large factor is the young voters as a deciding factor in this election. According to america.gov 14 percent of young voters (18 to 29 years old and make up 44 million eligible voters) will turn out to vote in the US, of which around 62 percent of those 44 million young voters favor Obama according to the Gallup poll. In addition, the New York Times reports (or purports - j.jk.) that 2.3 percent of the voter-eligible population will be excluded from voting either through disenfranchisement or other restrictions such as being a felon or not.

It is important to note however that certain exclusions have to be made from the poll numbers we have become so used to seeing. Given the two groups I cited above, African-Americans and young voters, it is worthwhile to note that some voters who fall into the young voter category may be African-American, may be disenfranchised, and may be felons. These exclusions make up the residuals and must be counted as errors in polling. In other words, when it comes to the polls the margin of error may or may not cover the exclusionary criteria.

The effect that the polls, pollsters, and the media in general have on voter decision making is important on its own. Consider the effect a pollster's questions may have depending on the series of questions asked, whether they are neutral or not, leading or not, and so forth. During a polling session the truthefulness of the answers of the polled voters may also be questionable. Another factor that may affect polling of likely voters may be the effect the media exerts over voter opinions. The treatment (rather non-treatement) afforded to the Republican candidates by the leftist media (ahem, ABC, MS/NBC, CBS, ans CNN) may change voter minds, be they negative or positive towards McCain/Palin.

The problem with all the statistics and polling we hear is that they cannot account well for the many variables that would exclude potential voters from the poll. So in effect how pollsters decide to sample the varying populations is important. The question that seems to have been raised reluctantly by the various media outlets has been how much if any do these presumably independent polls affect sampling and responses of those polled? Also, what is the effect to the questions asked? Furthermore, is it possible that the media, by utilizing ever complicated daily, weekly, and monthly polls, is shaping voter decisions? I wish these damned pollsters would shut up and just go away.

Why Bother With Electoral Votes?

With just a few days to go to that magical November 4th date when the president-elect is announced, I have to admit even I am getting annoyed by the media worship of Obama. For some time I had attributed it to the left being completely fed up with the conservatives but it occurred to me that something's awry.

We have a great election system in the US and we can thank the founding fathers for having the sense to protect us from the folly that is populism by instituting the electoral college system. Yet it is evident that populism has begun the overtake the senses of our electoral college to the point where it is no longer possible to identify whether a Democratic congressman or senator, and some Republican ones, are heeding the call of populism or are holding fast to republican ideals this country so long depended upon.

What makes populism dangerous is the fact that crowds can be swayed by emotion, as evident by the very huge crowds Obama draws, yet very few people in those crowds understand what Obama's policies mean to America. In addition, the very people who are charged with constraining the powers of the executive branch are suffering from the same fever of populism that has taken ill the general public. Not only are Republicans and conservatives in danger of losing the presidency, but they risk losing the ability to rein in any executive radicalism which in the current world will certainly prove to be detrimental to our legitimacy as the last bastion of trure democracy. In the event that Obama wins, the electoral college will fail to protect us from populism. One only has to to look at Venezuela and Spain as of late. It is no longer sufficient to hope that this is the United States and that it would not be possible for us to completely disregard the warnings of our founding fathers, we've got something coming alright.

For the past few days more information on Obama's ideology has surfaced further reinforcing the notion that he harbors socialistic ideology. Although in substance there may be nothing wrong with his belief that socialism is better than capitalism or market economics, there is a reason why Americans have continually rejected socialism in the past. Furthermore, if the tape in possession of the LA Times indeed portrays what it is purported to, then a close ally of the US in the Middle East is (i.e. Israel) is certain to see a dramatic drop in support should Obama win, irregardless of what he professes to the media.


It is the media -leftist in general- that has given Obama the tools of victory. If information is key to victory in this day and age then the leftist media has dropped the ball. Often times we hear the media complaining about suppression of the freedom of speech by the government, yet many media outlets are engaging in near suppression and have completely ignored the background of Obama - yet more evidence of populism. The major topic of the past few days has been taxation and health care. We hear from Obama supporters how it is so wonderful that his tax plan will spread the wealth from those who make a decent income to those who don't make any. I am all for charity but I detest any notion that the government should tell me how I dole out that charity. If the liberals are so inclined to redistribute income then let them do it without forcing the rest of us, who already think that a progressive tax is an idiotic idea, to our own devices. The main counter-argument to Obama's blunder of wealth redistribution is that we already have a progressive tax system so a little bit more from a larger number of tax payers is no big deal. Hell, many Republican presidents including Reagan and Bush have endorsed such a tax system. However, rather than start a fight in the Congress and among the people on the merits of flat taxes or otherwise, the Obama tax plan increases the ratio of which those with incomes above a certain cutoff marginal tax rate will pay even more. Combining this increase in the marginal tax with the myriad of increases in other transfer payment programs, such as the recruiting of a "teacher army" in the words of Obama to the payment of credits to those who make poverty wages and students who are not employed or otherwise make poverty wages, one is left to wonder if Obama will not be forced to lower that cutoff salary range of $250,000 to generate more government income. The worst of it all will be when Obama announces that he will be dipping into defense spending to pay for all of his welfare programs. All of this assuming that he wins. I am still holding out hope that McCain will win. He must, for our country's sake.

Hmmmm, Interesting

Oh wow, this warranted a press release? Who the hell would've known if they received a solicitation from the McCain camp? What, did McCain's campaign request a signature for the letter? Why are the Russian's involving themselves in American politics?

Permanent Mission
of the Russian Federation
to the United Nations

136 East 67th Street
New York, NY 10065
Fax: (212) 628-0252
517-7427

STATEMENT

20 October 2008

ON FUNDRAISING LETTER FROM

JOHN MCCAIN ELECTION CAMPAIGN

We have received a letter from Senator John McCain requesting financial contribution to his Presidential campaign.

In this connection we would like to reiterate that Russian officials, the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations or the Russian Government do not finance political activity in foreign countries.

Link: http://www.un.int/russia/new/MainRoot/docs/press/201008eprel.htm

Take 2: Is the Obama/Biden Ticket Dangerous for America?

The president of the United States of America is perceived by many as a position of responsible power and representative of democratic ideals. Thing is, during the past 8 years many people see the presidency of the US as autocratic and irresponsible, often times they quote the war on Iraq and global terror as the primary source of those claims. In light of Sen. Biden's recent comments Americans should feel concerned about what it would mean for all of us if Obama is elected. As Sen. Biden puts it:

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.” he told a fundraising crowd in the Pacific Northwest on Sunday. “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy..."

In essence, Biden is predicting what is almost always true of every newly elected president, including incumbent ones. After all it is a very logical move by anyone who wishes to stress out and annoy the American public, especially during a time when interest in the news and international affairs is high. Sen. Biden may very well be correct in his prediction, history can attest to that, however the question should be raised not whether the new president, whomever he may be, is tested, but whether that president has the right experience to deal effectively with these "tests."

Unfortunately, Sen. Obama does not have the required experience to deal with our enemies, nor is he guaranteed to work well with our allies. On the other hand, Sen. McCain has the necessary, and in my opinion required, experience to deal with any "tests" our enemies or allies will pose. In itself an Obama presidency does not afford us a strong position on the war on terror. Even with the support of Gen. Powell behind him, Sen. Obama will not be able to compensate for the lack of experience. Executive experience counts, so does experience in the military or tenure in the Senate for that matter.

So, in all probability an Obama presidency, by his own VP-candidate's admission, will involve the country in an international confrontation. What about when McCain wins? Will our enemies, and our allies, try to test his mettle? No, John McCain is not a wild card, nor is he an unknown.

I was very disappointed that Gen. Powel endorsed Sen. Obama rather than John McCain. However, I understand why he did it, but I hope it doesn't backfire on him. I understand that the Bush administration set him up in effect by pushing him to publicly state to the UN that weapons of mass destruction were being stockpiled by Saddam Hussein. Whether there's any merit at all to this hypothesis is irrelevant because, even allowing for the fact that Gen. Powell is not bitter about being used by the Bush administration to start a war, it makes no sense to me why he would break from Republicans by supporting a very left-leaning candidate? I have no explanation for it, even if the Obama camp had been pressing him for his endorsement since 8 months ago. Besides, didn't Gen. Powell, and Secretary Rice, make history as the first African-Americans to hold the position of Secretary of State. Why is the presidency suddenly a milestone, and his own accomplishments are not? Whatever the reason behind his decision, I hold a deep admiration for Gen. Powell. I have never agreed with the Bush administration's decision to marginalize and eventually push Gen. Powell out of his position. It is my opinion that Gen. Powell represented us very well within the Bush administration, albeit he opposed many of the Bush decisions - at least from a personal level. Still, I am speechless about his decision. I think it is the wrong move, especially since the Democrats and the liberals who support them are liable to mess everything up and eventually allow for the Republicans and the conservatives to once again take the reins of this country.

Which leads me to this: Obama needs to be very careful about how he acts in the Oval Office. I am positing here that it will be very difficult for him to ignore the radical elements of the Democratic party, making it impossible for him to gravitate towards the center. Unfortunately he will be stuck in a catch 22 mode, unable to commit to any difficult decisions that just might break with the radical liberal elements. If he ignores, circumvents, or opposes these fragments of the Democratic party, they will make his life very difficult and will jeopardize his bid for a second term. No wonder Biden's second warning today included the call to the Obama supporters to brace for difficult decisions and try to influence whomever they can to support the Obama presidency as such.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but isn't this uncertainty in the capabilities, or the direction Obama will take us, dangerous for America? In the event that Obama gets elected we will have a lame duck president on our hands. How will our enemies, again, and our allies, perceive him? You poke enough at us and you're liable to find a weak point in our posture. Rather than discourage such potential behavior from our enemies by electing a strong president McCain, Americans are on the verge of doing just the opposite. And for what? The promise of the promised land of social equality (so unsuccessful in Europe and the rest of the world)?

I will laugh or cry on election day. We'll see which mood I'm in.

US Tax System Explained in Beer

A Freeper pointed me to this comment which I found to be the best explanation of the tax burden of the wealthy:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10! "Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man.
'I only saved a dollar, too.. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I! "That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!
"Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!
'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man ( the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

From: http://www.ktok.com/pages/mullinsinthemorning.html

The Rich Vote Republican, So Why is Warren Buffet Supporting Obama?

I was sitting in an Oklahoma diner listening to the Texas - Sooners game, which Texas won, thank you very much - all the while debating the merits of a McCain/Palin White House with a friend of mine who "claims" to be an independent voter. I swear, these independent voters are something special aren't they?

Our verbal sparring was all over the place, from foreign policy to economic plans. It took me a while to convince him not to base his vote on the rhetoric he hears from either campaign, the major TV and print media, but rather to see things objectively and argue logically and not emotionally. He agreed. Thus I proceeded to break down Obama's flawed economic and social policies and related them to socialist ones. I also agreed that McCain had made a mistake by voting for the bailout plan, but we conceded that for both candidates their vote was driven by necessary politics. Nor do I think that McCain's economic plan is great, but at least he won't be increasing taxes on my wife and I.

I was doing fine until he asked me a question that stumped me: "If McCain's tax policies favor the middle class, businesses, investors, and the rich, why is it that Warren Buffet has endorsed Barack Obama?" I had to be honest and I told him that I had no idea why, but there must be a simple explanation, which as it turn out it was rather simple, void of any complex economic theory and logic. So I looked it up.

All I had to do was perform a simple Google search with the search terms: "rich vote obama". Apparently the rich are divided into two categories: those who are rich with a net worth of $1 million to $10 million, and the ultra- or super-rich, with net worths greater than $30 million. During the 2004 presidential race Elite Traveler Magazine contracted a survey firm to poll a sample of the rich and the ultra-rich to determine how the rich vote. According to that survey, those who were considered rich ($1 million - $10 million) largely said they would vote with their wallets, and agreed that Bush would be better for their finances. However, 90.7% of those who were considered super-rich (> $10 million) agreed that Bush would be better for the economy and their finances, but nevertheless they chose to vote for Kerry. The surveyor's conclusion was:

"The findings clearly demonstrate that the Elite Affluent are so wealthy, other issues are more important to them in selecting their country's leader then their personal financial situations," Prince said. "At the same time, the majority of the Upper Affluent, who are rich but still have financial constraints, are principally voting with their pocketbooks."

Fast forward to 2008 and the current presidential election. Will the rich and the super-rich voting patterns change or remain the same as 2004? A Wall Street Journal post explores the same issue citing the same surveying firm as in the 2004 example to determine if there is a difference in voting pattern in the rich and super-rich voters. Out of a sample of 493 families, the survey found yet again that 66% of those with a net worth of greater than $30 million would vote for Obama, while only 15% of those with net worth of $1 million to $10 million would support Obama. According to the opinion piece, the major reason given for the voting trends was taxes. Those who were only considered rich (< $10 million) cited taxes as the primary reason why they would support John McCain, with social issues and the environment being secondary and tertiary reasons. Among the super-rich, tax policy came last in their consideration for supporting either candidate and placed social and environmental issues at the top of their decision to support Obama.

The super-rich are very indifferent to taxes simply because of the size of their net worth where taxes do not make a big enough of a dent. Also, they are more likely to employ tax attorneys, structure their assets in tax-deferred, trusts, or other tax burden reduction mechanisms. Because either candidates tax policy does not affect the super-rich financially, they are free to chose a candidate based on other policies, such as social reform and the environment. In other words, Warren Buffet could care less about how the government taxes him.

What does this tell us? Well, it goes to show that although an individual is wealthy, he or she does not necessarily make better decisions than the rest of us. They are just as conflicted as the rest of us. Unfortunately, we look up to them because we want to be as successful as them, and since they represent a small percentage of the population but hold the largest amount of wealth, their political support of a candidate counts. With the tax burden inconsequential to him, Warren Buffet supports Obama because of the perception that Obama's economic policies are more favorable to the poor and lower middle class. My guess is this is another form of charity on the part of the super-rich.

I like what the author of the Op-Ed piece in the WSJ had to say:

But the survey offers an important insight into the effect of wealth on personal politics. Perhaps the old saying should be changed to: If you’re ultrawealthy and conservative you have no heart; if you’re wealthy and liberal, you have no brain.

True Enough: This is the Best One-Liner Ever!

So, I' m pretty bored and my eyes hurt from reading the news so much. It's not that politics is the only thing I think of, but it makes things interesting especially during an election season. While Stumbling around I came along this:



or click here.

God, I needed a good laugh.

The Socialism of Obama-nomics

From FoxNews:

Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama's remarks drew fresh criticism on the blogosphere that the Illinois senator favors a breed of wealth redistribution -- as well as a rebuke from the McCain campaign.

"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."

...

Lately we've heard quite a few liberal pundits accuse Republicans and conservatives in general of falsely accusing Obama and Dem leaders Pelosi and Reed of pushing a socialist agenda. Their clamoring for fairness arose from a n angry comment by a McCain town hall attendee who expressed his anger at whom he, not John McCain, called socialists, referring to Obama, Pelosi, and Reed, and the Dem controlled Congress in general. Good for that ballsy gentleman, who expressed anger at what so many of us feel is a wrong step toward financial recovery that is this bailout plan, albeit pushed by a Republican president, and the other $150 billion in handout money Pelosi wants us to be further indebted to.

Why shouldn't ordinary Americans think that Obam, Pelosi, and Reed are pushing a socialist agenda? Many liberals, far left and to the center, think that wealth redistribution is a great idea, that it would help prop up so many millions of Americans who are down on their financial luck, never mind you that in order for this wealth redistribution to work it would burden the backs of so many of us, who through hard work, good and bad luck, have made choices that allow us to enjoy some prosperity. I ask, why don't these liberals - rather numerous in number - open up their own pocket books and redistribute their own wealth if they choose to?

Why are we as a nation afraid to admit the fact that we have a presidential candidate, who by his own admission would like to "spread wealth around," holds fast to Socialist ideals? Let's see what we have in Obama: firstly, there's his association with Bill Ayers who, terrorist or not, espouses Marxist ideals; secondly, Obama has worked with the quasi-socialist organization ACORN; thirdly, has proposed a tax plan that offers 95% of Americans a tax refund, 45% of whom do not even pay taxes; fourthly, admits to the public at one of his rallies that he is for wealth redistribution; and finally, promises to involve these community organizing committees in policy decisions, akin to action committees so familiar during labor and communist movements.

I am certain his campaign will try to spin Obama's latest blunder. After all the rhetoric of his campaign, there is finally proof, from his own admission, of what an Obama presidency would entail. There are plenty of people in the US who think that socialism is far better than a market economy. Yet, there is a reason why socialism wasn't fully embraced by the American people. Sure, we have experimented in the past, especially during the Great Depression, but Americans rejected socialism as ineffective for the economy, unfair and unequal in social matters, and restrictive of the very freedoms that have made us the envy of the world.

Our financial markets, and all investors in general, should fear an Obama presidency, especially when Congress is poised to win Dem majorities to defeat any Republican filibustering. Liberals and Dems say we conservatives and Republicans are fear mongers, racists, divisive, and just plain ignorant, because we cling to guns, religion, and the same politicians who do not care for change. I would rather enjoy the misery of an economic depression rather than lose my self respect, my faith, and my freedom. Woe to those sheep who readily go to the wolves!

Government Can Fix It All, So It Claims!

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Friday the U.S. government was moving aggressively to address the financial markets crisis, but he acknowledged that anxiety was feeding on itself as stocks continued to plunge.

"The United States government is acting; we will continue to act to resolve this crisis and restore stability to our markets," Bush said in an eight-and-a-half minute statement in the White House Rose Garden aimed at calming Americans' growing fears.

The credit markets have remained largely frozen despite coordinated interest rate cuts by central banks and government intervention to safeguard deposits and provide additional liquidity to lenders.

Stock markets have continued to fall dramatically which has drained the value of retirement accounts and limited the ability of companies to raise capital, stoking fears of a global recession and potentially a depression.

...

I had an opportunity to interview a SEC lawyer during a seminar at my college and it struck me as odd that he was clamoring for less regulation, especially since he works for a regulatory agency. When I pressed him on the possible future investigations that may come as a result of lax market rules, he defended the SEC by noting that it was the Democrats who imposed strict regulatory rules on the financial markets, most of which were ineffective in design and cost quite a bit of money. Also, he kept insisting that the bailout would be good for the economy, but he kept defending the ridiculous notion that government should not inhibit markets. As if $820 billion is not an inhibitor of free markets in and on itself. I'm sure that once the Congressional hearings begin anew, we will see how well Pelosi and other democrats represent us in this regard. My guess is that heads may start rolling when this crisis is all but done, however we will see an increase in the overt corruption in the Senate and Congress, which my guess is, judging by the latest polling, will skew heavily liberal. I wonder if Pelosi and Reed will be willing enough to investigate and punish those who were charged with the oversight of Freddie and Fannie in Congress. After all, it was these institutions which encouraged our current calamity. It's doubtful that would happen, therefore corruption in a Democratic government will jump, thanks to the snowball effect of "you tell on me, I tell on you."

It's a real shame McCain voted for this bailout bill. I don't say this lightly, but one has to see the dangers of what may come in the future. Consider an Obama/Biden presidency, which is looking more likely than not, and a Democratic controlled Congress. We've allowed our current government to increase it's control on the economy past Keynesian levels, even dangerously close to controlling huge quantities of financials, which weak as they are, can give an Obama White House immense control over our financial institutions. The real blame truthfully should rest with these giant financial powerhouses, which although love to mitigate risk by utilizing complex mathematics and exotic vehicles to structure trades, they cannot foresee the risk of being indebted to the government. Our political and financial leaders have caused trillions of dollars to hemorrhage out of 401(k) and other retirement plans. This issue is compounded further when you understand that 50% of all working individuals in the US are invested in the stock market in one form or another.

One thing bothers me deeply with the Obama/Biden presidency and a government with increased financial control of free markets, and that is taxation. This bailout bill has the potential of real returns but it can also be used as a club Obama can yield to pressure corporations, upper class and middle class individuals to swallow the increase in taxes. This leverage over our financial institutions is poison to our economy and no self respecting, logical, red-blooded citizen should accept. Given the likelihood of victory, Republicans and conservatives in general should be weary of the future. Unfortunately it we can thank president Bush's bailout plan for giving the Democrats a stepping stone from which they can ascend to complete control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. We can also blame a divided Republican/Conservative base which for years has stagnated and has not represented a big enough of a challenge to the liberals. So, I consider this current mess we are in, including the potential win of the left, as a wake-up call to Republicans and conservatives who prefer a limited intrusion of government into our daily lives, our faith, and our pocketbooks.

Yet, still I foster the hope that McCain/Palin will ascend to the presidency, although they would have to contend with an contentious Congress. At least, there's still hope that the Obama/Biden campaign will fall flat on its face and lose. There's always hope. Otherwise what can we say to our descendants that we lost hope in freedom? I don't think so.

A Democratic Victory This Year Could Be Good For Republicans

From Marketwatch.com:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - When the polls say Senate seats in Republican bastions such as Alaska, Kentucky and Texas are vulnerable to a Democratic takeover in November, you know it's the Democrats' year. The Democrats, who now have 51 seats in the 100-member Senate (counting independents), are beginning to dream of an almost unattainable goal: Reaching the magical 60 votes needed to exercise absolute control of the chamber.

...

Losing this election may actually be good news for Republicans. With the possibility of a "filibuster-proof" Senate controlled by Democrats, every decision made, economic, political, social, and military, will be scrutinized by people in the US and elsewhere.

In relation to the current "stimulus" plan President Bush may be remembered as a genius for allowing Paulson to scare the American people into financing the bailout of ditressed financial institutions. That is, assuming our markets don't lose too much, and our economy improves. Unfortunately for the Democrats, in this scenario, the benefits of success would only apply to a Republican president leaving them out in the cold. But, if the bailout paln fails, our markets collapse, and our economy tanks, it will be the Democrats who will bear the blame for approving the bailout, not the US president, nor the Republican minority.

My point will become clear when we see Democrats take the reins of our economy and country completely. We will suffer economically and socially, the impacts of which will be felt worldwide. It is no longer sufficient to claim to be a Republican, or an independent without first realizing the dangers liberals pose during tough times. I don't know about you, but just about the only good thing to come out of a liberal controlled US is a heavy decline in immigration. After all, if there are no opportunities in a country which used to be the ultimate destination for so many imigrants, and a symbol of free men, what hope do we have for the future prosperity of our children and our the tradition of liberty spanning over two hundred years?

Is the Obama/Biden Ticket is Dangerous for America

It constantly amazes me that the Obama/Biden ticket do not get hammered hard by the GOP, and Republicans in general for their political leanings, especially when we need to call Obama out on his liberal and darn right socialist ideology, in light of his official website's call for a protest in Gov. Palin's event in Dallas today. Sen. Obama's message, and Sen. Biden's at times, is full of terms referring to his progressive, community organizing, taxing the rich and upper middle class, fair, equality, etc., only stopping short of using socialist terminology such as proletariat, bourgeoisie, and revolution. Note that whenever he speaks of change I cannot help it but to me it sounds as if he is saying revolution.

Although there are several distinctions between liberals and socialists they commonly agree on two things, of which Obama claims to hold true: freedom and organization (as in a body that acts on behalf and for benefit of others). Borrowing from the great political economist Friedrich Hayek, these two principles couldn't be more polar of opposites. For one, freedom doesn't care for organization (note Obama was a community organizer) because organization will, by its very hierarchical and anti-individualistic nature, will stifle freedom. Thus, organization, so beloved by socialists and liberals, diminishes individualism, the very thing we as Americans and free people hold dear, and it always tends to minimize freedom.

Which brings me to another point regarding the danger the Obama/Biden ticket brings. When you look closer to what a community organizer does, as was Obama who constantly reminds us, note that he holds fast to the basic principles of socialism. This is also reflected in his proposed tax policy, which is a socialist policy if you closely look. Now, it is not enough to say that this is a small matter thus it can be overlooked, but doing so is dangerous because he would apply these community organizer (socialist) principles on a national scale. At least in the Senate both, Obama and Biden, are checked by 98 others, and given his rhetoric the liberals who are now supporting him will eventually recognize the error of their support. Note that liberalism is more democratic than socialism and liberals for the most part do not always agree with the socialist progressive ideology.

And this brings me to my final point: Obama's obsession with change, or what socialists call progressivism. This term is also favored by liberals, as I have mentioned above, but leftist radicals love it just the same. As an ideology, progressivism is dangerous in that it proposes a Utopian vision and according to Obama only those with socialist tendencies can be trusted to carry it out - the rest of America, which clings to it's religion and guns, is to be reformed.

So why is progressivism in Obama's context dangerous? Looking back in history during the French Revolution, the progressives then with the motto of "Liberty, Brotherhood, Equality" -which sound familiar- caused major damage to the middle class and aristocracy, not to mention tens of thousands of dead who would not fall in line. But those who hurt most then were the poor and the disenfranchised the progressives were claiming to help. How about the progressive movement of the Bolsheviks during Lenin's October Revolution? Yet again the poor and everyone in general suffered by the actions of these progressives, holding Russia and half the world under a communist boot guised as socialism. Furthermore, the National Socialist movement in Germany, commonly referred to as Nazism, claimed to be progressive, and at one point Hitler claimed both his movement and Marxism have similarities and bear little distinction. Again, progressives as such caused millions of lives to be lost.

But I must warn that I am not convinced that Obama harbors such apocalyptic visions for our country, but consider for a moment what we, as Americans, can lose in terms of freedom. Consider the notion that if Obama wins, we will have a "democratic" President, liberal/quasi-socialist controlled House and Senate, and anti-constitutional Supreme Court and federal justices. What will we lose if that is the case? How about the fact that Obama's federal government will usurp the powers of the states, provide a socialist government, and eventually reduce our freedoms.

This is the reason why I used the word "dangerous" to refer to a possible Obama presidency.

Wow! Obama delivers a corny speech to Berliners

I saw the Obama's speech yesterday and I have to say it brought back some memories. I mean, the speech was nothing but fluff and it resembled some of the rhetoric I used to hear during the post-communist era in Albania when every politician gave an idealistic speech that sounded great and was full of hope but lacked substance. What annoyed me was the fact that Obama was trying to give the impression that his presidency is all but confirmed. But why appeal to the Europeans when you are vying for the US presidency? That irked me a little. Although the media love affair with Obama is pretty annoying, there are throngs of journalists out there who see beyond the fluff - foreigners are no exception to this. Take Gerard Baker of the Times Online. He wrote the best satirical piece I have read so far on Obama and his cult-like followers:

He ventured forth to bring light to the world

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: "Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?"

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered "Hosanna" and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: "Yes, We Can."


URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece

If that doesn't make you laugh, then I am sorry, but you must have checked your sensibility at the door.