What Can Congress Do About Gas Prices?

The KSHB Chronicles

 

On 7 September 2008, I am to speak to KSHB TV in Kansas City about several issues. 

They tell me that they want to know my energy policy, whether I believe in Global Warming, What can be done about Gasoline Prices, When I think American Troops should come home from Iraq, Where the Next Front should be in the War on Terror, Who is responsible for the mortgage crisis, and What I would do to increase jobs.

 

WHAT CAN CONGRESS DO ABOUT GAS PRICES?

 

The first thing to get straight about gas prices is that there is no lack of supply of petroleum in the market.  This means that the recent rise in prices is not a matter of supply and demand.   

FACT. On 28 August 2008 the price of a gallon of gas was $3.49 and the price of an ounce of gold $812.50.  So the price of a gallon of gasoline was 0.00429538 ounces of gold.  

FACT.  On 1 September 2001 the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.123 and an ounce of gold was $270.00.  That made the price of a gallon of gas 0.00417407 ounces of gold.  

FACT. This means that gas is selling at $1.16 in 2001 dollars  or $0.037 higher than at the same time in 2001.

So, if there is no fuel shortage, and the price of gasoline is fundamentally the same as it was 7 years ago, what gives.  

Well, simply put, the government reduced the buying power of the dollar.  Simple math makes that clear.  It now takes $3.49 to purchase what $1.16 bought in 2001.  No reduction in supply accounts for it.  No increase in demand accounts for it.

So, what can be done?  Nothing as long as the currency value can be repegged by the government arbitrarily.  When dollars were redeemable in silver the government could not play these kind of games.  This is the same game that the states played under the Articles of Confederation.  This is the very reason the constitution requires that currency be redeemable in gold or silver.  The founding fathers did not want the government to have the power to affect their wealth in this manner.

The constitution has not been changed, the government, in both Republican and Democrat administrations, has been acting illegally.  The dollar needs to be redeemable in silver once again.  Were that so, then, no matter what paper currency games the government, and its lap dog the Federal Reserve, try to play, the average consumer will be protected.  Historically, the result of currency redeemable in precious metal is price stability.

 Governments support themselves by taxation, borrowing, and the theft of their citizens buying power (savings).  The government stole your buying power, and spent it on some program you did not want.  Now your dollar buys less.  It just goes to show that Saint Augustine was right when he said the difference between governments and thieves is that thieves are honest about what they do.

When Should Our Troops Come Home From Iraq?

The KSHB Chronicles

On 7 September 2008, I am to speak to KSHB TV in Kansas City about several issues. 

They tell me that they want to know my energy policy, whether I believe in Global Warming, What can be done about Gasoline Prices, When I think American Troops should come home from Iraq, Where the Next Front should be in the War on Terror, Who is responsible for the mortgage crisis, and What I would do to increase jobs.

 

When Should Our Troops Come Home From Iraq?

We need to look at some history before answering this question.

Fact:  We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussien lied and convinced the world that he was the dangerous possessor of weapons of mass destruction.  Being the kind of guy who was known to stuff people into wood chippers and gas babies, he managed to create what he wanted.  He wanted the world terrified of him.  He did not anticipate that the result would lead to the destruction of his armies and hanging at the end of a gibbet.

Fact.  We crushed the Iraqi established state, and created a situation of social chaos.

Fact.  We were not prepared to re-establish a democratic authority.

Fact.  George Bush was right to say mission accomplished.  From that point on, we have been flying by the seat of our pants.

Fact.  Assigning Swat Team and Policing duties to our regular combat troops is putting them at risk because it is beyond their regular duties and training.  They are doing a great job of learning on the fly, but it is an abuse of their purpose to use them in this way.

Fact.  Our failure to have a plan created a chaotic mess for the average Iraqi on the street.

Fact.  It is no surprise that our government is clueless as to how to manage Iraq.  They are clueless as to how to manage the United States.

Fact.  In all this chaos the Iraqi people have demonstrated a talent for blue finger democracy.

Fact.  We believe in Democracy.  The Iraqi’s believe in democracy.  

Fact.  Our military leaders have said that we will need to occupy Iraq for fifty years.

I suggest we submit the question to a vote by the Iraqi people.  If they think we are a valuable contribution to their social stability.  We stay.  If they think they would be better served with us gone, we go, as quickly as possible.  No political spin from their leaders. No political spin from our leaders.  After all, it is their country, and it should be run on their say so.

Washington The Next Front on Terror!

The KSHB Chronicles

On 7 September 2008, I am to speak to KSHB TV in Kansas City about several issues. 

They tell me that they want to know my energy policy, whether I believe in Global Warming, What can be done about Gasoline Prices, When I think American Troops should come home from Iraq, Where the Next Front should be in the War on Terror, Who is responsible for the mortgage crisis, and What I would do to increase jobs.

 

WASHINGTON; THE NEXT FRONT IN THE WAR ON TERROR

 

It is time to inject some truth and plain speaking into this “War on Terror” business.  Wars are fought between nation states, or at least between princes (big thugs).  Al Quaeda is not a country, a warlord, a prince/thug or anything else that does not fit the bill of gangster and pirate.  We are not engaged in a “War on Terror”.

Saddam Hussein and the Iraq war were not a part of any “War on Terror”.  Saddam convinced everyone he had wepons of mass destruction.  Being the kind of a guy who shoved folks into wood chippers for fun, and murdered babies for practice, the world became understandably nervous at the idea of Saddam with such weapons.   Saddam ran his bluff as long as he could and got hung for it.

The fighting in Afganistan against the Taliban was a reprisal against harborers of the Al Quaeda gang.  The Taliban was a deplorable bunch but they posed no threat to the industrial world outside providing the gangsters a safe haven.  The Taliban is gone.  I talked to a former seal last night who served there and he said we were only there to make the politicians happy.

Now we are engaged in a fight with a well armed, well trained gang.  It is no different than dealing with the Mafia, or the Colombian Drug Cartel.   Well armed and well trained gangs one and all.  I read this morning that the Colombian Drug Cartel purchased US military helicopters from Israel.  They are closer to us, and better armed than Al Quaeda.  They prey upon our cities and have caused more violence in our cities than Al Quaeda has ever done.

Drive by shootings, drug related street crime, murders, bombings can all be laid to their door step.

Even so, there is no hysteria to have national identity papers, internal check points, bank reporting of our business, snoop searches, uncharged imprisonment off shore, an end to habeas corpus or other impositions on our civil rights because of the Colombian Drug Cartels.  But take a bunch of half educated Muslims, give then some IED’s, some pipe bombs, some RPG’s  and a few hundred AK47’s and Washington goes crazy and wants FISA Courts.  

We do not have 150,000 men chasing the drug cartel out of Colombia, and never did.

So, I think the next front in the “War on Terror” should be the front to bring some perspective to this so called “War on Terror”, and to review and roll back every authoritarian portion  of the patriot act that has supported government secrecy,  including warrantless searches and secret courts.

What Energy Policy?

The KSHB Chronicles

On 7 September 2008, I am to speak to KSHB TV in Kansas City about several issues. 

They tell me that they want to know my energy policy, whether I believe in Global Warming, What can be done about Gasoline Prices, When I think American Troops should come home from Iraq, Where the Next Front should be in the War on Terror, Who is responsible for the mortgage crisis, and What I would do to increase jobs.

 

WHAT ENERGY POLICY?

 

We need to decide whether our goal is energy independence, or being a member of a globalist energy system.  Not wanting our internal policies subject to the whims and dictates of world energy czars, I prefer energy independence.

Today the United States has no real energy policy.  Unless, that is, one counts maintaining a strategic oil reserve.  Everything else we talk about in the field of energy policy is tainted by globalist preservationism.  The latest is carbon footprint taxation.  This is nothing less than trying to backdoor the Kyoto accords into national policy.

I believe that we need to get our heads out of the nineteenth century and look forward.  I believe that we should move the nation to cellulostic e95 ethanol for transportation, and that we should recognize that sugar based ethanol is only a way station on that path.

I believe that the answer to a fuel price crisis created by government manipulation of the value of the currency can not be solved by offshore or Anwar drilling.  Those issues may need to be addressed, but not without developing a real energy goal and policy.  

I believe that we must recognize the harm the global preservationist movement has caused, and allow the creation of more localized petroleum refining and ethanol distilling.  Today the global preservationist movement has driven 90% of our refining capacity to a handful of counties in South Texas.  This is a situation which makes the nation vunerable to weather disasters and man made crisis.  We need a more diverse motor fuel supply system.

I believe that we need to make the licensing of small nuclear power facilities easier.  We have a nuclear navy.  We train nuclear technicians to run that navy without incident.  That tried and tested technology could be used to power many of our smaller cities, relieving the strains on our power grid.

As alternative energy technologies become viable they should also be incorporated into our power grid.  No one talks about the most viable of the alternative technologies – Tesla Geo Thermal Electrical Generation.  I wonder if that is because Tesla Geo Thermal Electrical Generation frees consumers from the power grid? 

Up until now we have been trying to legislatively choose between competing technologies.  Perhaps the reality is that corporate welfare is rife in the energy field, and partisans of one or another of the possible technologies are just trying to protect pocketbooks.  In any case, it is not within the governments ability to legislate  science and technological progress. The government has no business favoring one technology over another until the purpose and goals of an agreed upon national energy policy are adopted.

The More Things Change

I rarely get a chance to show you the kind of discrimination third party candidates face.  The following came to my attention.  There are three candidates in the race.  I was never contacted about this.  I really should be angry, but there you are.  It is a fixed game, but it is the only game in town. Click the link to see what I mean.

 

 

 

fall-chair-breakfast-news-release-8

World View?

 

I received the following letter and I feel it deserves a public  answer.

 

As a member of the Center for Moral Clarity, a national Christian grassroots organization, I am convinced that a leader’s worldview is the most important thing a follower can know about him or her. To that end, I want to ask you some of the same questions that were asked at the recent presidential forum:

   ?   1) At what point does a baby get human rights?

   ?   2) How do you define marriage?

   ?   3) Does evil exist? 

   ?   4) If evil exists, what should we do to counter it? 

   ?   5) Should all citizens have the right to publicly profess and observe their religious faith? 

 

I look forward to learning your responses to these questions.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Alan Armfield

 

 

I.  At what point does a baby get human rights?

The flip answer is when it becomes a human being.  In truth, I am not God and do not know the answer.  Being a lawyer by trade,  I look to religious and legal history to guide me.

 Our law is clear that a baby gets human rights when the fetus has sufficiently developed to begin to exercise voluntary muscle control.  This has been the position of the church for over a thousand years that at this point there could be no question that developing tissue had become a fully human.  I believe that position is well settled cannon and temporal law.

Being well settled law, it is safe to use this point as a guide post.  

Other positions are matters of faith, and I am loathe to adopt a legal position based upon the imposition of religious values.  It is not the purpose of government to act as an arbiter of matters of faith, and to adopt a legal position contrary to  our history would be doing just that.

 

II.  How do you define marriage?

Personally I believe that marriage is a relationship between a man, a woman, and God.  But then I am old fashioned in my views.  Others, supported by many clergy, believe that it is a relationship between two people and God.  I am not brave enough to claim that I get to speak for God, and I certainly am smart enough to know that if God blesses a homosexual relationship, it would be terribly presumptious of me to question it.

 

III.  Does Evil Exist? 

Yes!

 

IV.  If evil exists, what should we do to counter it?

This question indicates a failure to understand the nature of evil, or alternatively presumes that bad conduct is the same as evil.  It is not.  Just because someone opposes us or uses force against us, or retreats to their animal nature in dealing with us doess not make their actions evil;  stupid, childish, inconvenient perhaps but not evil.  

In the face of true evil, we have only the refuge of the Lord.  Men can not counter evil.  Men can live within the light and mercy of God and offer an alternative to a life dominated by evil.

Men can become the vessels to carry the love of God in the world.  It is the love of God that counters evil.  It is the light of God that gives evil no place to live.

 

 

V.  Should all citizens have the right to publicly profess and observe their religious faith? 

The answer to this question is yes and no.  All citizens should have the right to publicly profess their religious faith.  But, some profess faith in evil and others would commit hurtful acts in the name of their faith.  I am pretty much over toleration for those who sacrifice their babies to Bel, or murder innocents in dark alleys for Kali.

Barnes, Graves, & Security State Fascism

My friend Corrine asked me “what would you like to see happen in this election”. 

 

The answer is relatively simple.  I would like to see an end to Security State Fascism.

 

She, and many others I know, repeat its mantras as if they were true.  The government is there to help you and it should fight terrorism, or give me health care, or make babies cuter, or make the trains run on time, or feed the poor, or house the wealthy, or provide a social safety net,  or lower gas prices, or end global warming,  or provide jobs, or make the trains run on time.

 

We just need to use the engine of government to do good and we will have heaven on earth.

 

But relying on government is relying on organs of power. And as much as one might want to deny it,  power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The founders understood that in their bones, and they were afraid of power.  There is very little difference between a strong central government and keeping a bad junk yard dog.  Depending on the situation both may be necessary, but they can not be allowed to get the upper hand.  In my race, both Kay Barnes and Sam Graves think that they can use the power of government to reach their agenda with out being corrupted.  They are deluded.

 

The price of looking to government to solve our problems is to give up our right to control our own lives. The theory of collectivist liberalism is morally and intellectually bankrupt.  It is individual freedom and prosperity that improve life.  At some point, the collectivists among us need to understand that the Berlin  Wall fell, and that there will be no more instructions from Moscow.  The communists were right that the state is the enemy of freedom, they were wrong in believing that centralizing power would cause it to fade away.

 

Putting an end to Security State Fascism is not really all that difficult.  The first thing we must do is stop voting for the laundry. Politics is not a team sport and the uniform means a lot less than the person in it.  In my race for instance, there is no doubt that both Barnes and Graves both believe in using the power of the government to achieve their own agenda.  

 

There are people who want to see a return to  a limited constitutional government in all parties. With Libertarians it is a passion, but there are RLC Republicans  running, and in more conservative areas honest to god conservative democrats.  You simply can not vote for your parents mistakes and hope that things will get better.  

 

Next, find yourself candidates that understand monetary policy, and can explain in two syllable words why it is important to tie currency to hard assets.  (Hint: it keeps the junk yard leashed up where it is safe.)

 

Then vote for them.  Your savings will be safe, your children will breathe free air, and apple pie will taste better.

The Second Black President?

Well the democrats have finally shown their colors.  Barak Obama wants Joe Biden for his vice president.  I will tell you the truth, that confused the very devil out of me.  Barak, “I am change”, chosing Mr. Washington insider, who is too liberal for his own party?  What is that all about.

 

I asked my friends on another list, six hundred plus lawyers.  The only huge cheer for the choice came from an unabashed progressive (we don’t say liberal any more it is too pejorative).  They were excited because Biden is anti-war, pro-regulation, pro-big government, and so green (or is that ludite) that he can’t stand still for fear of being harvested.   Their analysis made it clear.  Joe Biden represents the glorious past of the Democratic Party, a return to the halcyon days of the first black president  Jimmy Carter.  Biden became a senator in the Carter era.  He has faithfully supported Carteresque programs his entire life.  He shares the political view points of Mr. Obama being the one of the top five progressives (we don’t say liberal any more it is too pejorative) in the Senate.

 

This kind of logic scares me.  I will admit that the reason that America forgave Bill Clinton is that they think Hillary is a witch on roller skates, but looking to the Clinton era would have made sense.  Hillary is not a numbskull, and their motto was “its the economy, stupid!”  There are worse eras to emulate.  But Carter, heaven help us.  The gas crisis was not high price, it was no gas available at any price.  Our foreign policy was so anemic that the Iranians seized our diplomats and held them a year incarcerated. Carter could not even mount a rescue, something Ross Perot did personally.  Mortgage rates hit 20%, and it got to the point where it looked a lot like we would have Weimar inflation.  The times were bad, but the president was a vanilla oreo with a chocolate center.  Perhaps Mr. Obama is nostalgic.  That at least is a logical explanation.

 

However, I fear that the true explanation is that the choice of Biden as Vice-presidential running mate shows that Mr. Obama intends to drag america into a type of nanny state socialism which will bring back the worst of the Carter days.  Mr. Obama you have shown your hand and I have only one thing to say to you, “its the economy, stupid!”

What is your position on Same Sex Marriage?

Somewhere out in the electrosphere is a church, in Ohio (I think), that has encouraged people to ask me that question.  It is a fair question, but not fair to ask me.  My position on same sex marriage is tainted by the fact that I am by profession a divorce attorney.  I happen to be good at it.  That fact makes me a bit odd to begin with.

 

You need to understand some things.  I am an old fundy christian, and I think that marriage is a three party agreement between two individuals and The Deity.  Because of my own sexual orientation, I just can not see the attraction of a same sex relationship.  In the last fifty nine years, I have never run into a guy I thought was cute or sexy.  I do not deny that it could not happen but historically the odds are against it.  So, in my mind, marriage is between a man a woman and The Deity.    

 

Historically, the regulation of marriage was a matter of state policy to prevent miscegenation.  As a society, we have rejected that belief.  The state is then without any continued justification to control marriage within its boundaries other than the need of the state to compete with the church in the realm of morality.  I, for one, do not want the state to be the arbiter of morality.  

 

I want the state to get out of the marriage business entirely.  I want to see marriage become a matter of contract and religious blessing.  This is how it is done in many areas of the world, and I think it is better if the parties have to enter into written agreements regarding the acquisition of property, the welfare of the children, and what effect the duration of the marriage will have on any entitlement to continue to share income before the relationship starts.

 

Under our present system it is easy to get married and hard to get divorced.  It should be hard to get married and easy to get divorced.  It would cut out my income but I could get into the marital agreement business and be happy.

 

So, what does all this mean?  It means that I support same sex marriage but only from personal avarice. Same sex marriage gives me more potential clients.  Same sex couples tend not to have children, and not having children they tend to acquire more property, which frankly means more money to pay attorneys.  Same sex couples are people like everyone else, and there will be a high proportion of silly vindictiveness in their divorces just like opposite sex couples.  It is a potential cash cow for lawyers.

 

But, we must protect marriage you say.  I leave that up to the church.  I can not imagine belonging to a church that would sanction same sex marriages, but I am old fashioned like that.  Equally, who am I to say what your church may or may not do?  What I am sure of is that marriage is an agreement involving two individuals and their God.  I do not want the state defining what relationship any man, or woman can or can not have with God.  In my eyes, it is not the state’s place to interfere with the will of God, or compete with God in blessing marriages.

 

Posted 8/22/2008 DRB

Spinning About Gas Prices

     The government caused the buying power of the dollar to shrink by engaging in financial machinations undertaken without a concern for the american consumer.  Graves and Barnes know this but will not say so.  They want to blame each other but the real price of gas in buying power has risen only 44.6 cents in the last 16 years, and that is due primarily to government monetary and environmental policy.  The congress could vote to rescind the gasoline tax or end local blending, or both, but it wont.

*

     What is needed, is to re-link the dollar to gold or silver as required by the constitution which would prevent the government from stealing the buying power of its citizens, and stabilize the buying power of the dollar.

*

     Additionally, we need to have a policy that encourages the development of cellulostic ethanol from something other than corn.  Something that is easy to farm while it replenishes the soil, this miracle plant exists and both Graves and Barnes know it.   Finally,  we need an environmental policy that makes small, area,  refineries easy to license.  Why smaller area refineries?  Because the EPA insists on local gasoline blends and this drives up the manufacturing costs.  Additionally, local refineries would make it easier to get ethanol to the refinery, which would make the change over to e85-e95 easier to accomplish.

*

       I am fascinated to hear the big two talk about energy policy.  Sam Graves says drill, drill, drill.  Kay Barnes blames Sam for Exxon, and touts renewable energy -the democratic mantra.  I remember the gas crisis of the 1970’s.  The problem then was that demand had outstripped supply. The problem with gas prices today is not one of supply. People are getting all the fuel they want to  purchase.  I ask you ” how is drilling going to solve the problem of an already adequate supply?”  

*

         The argument for drilling to increase supply falls apart when examined. Drilling to decrease foreign oil dependency is a different matter, that is not related to prices.  If  the problem is not a lack of supply then is it lack of renewable energy?

*

       Again the answer is no.  I looked into an electric car being sold here in Grain Valley.  It has a top speed of around 25mph and a range of 30 miles.  It is designed for big city use only.  Vehicles that are useful in the sixth district do not run on renewable energy, they run on consumable energy.  

*

           The problem with gas prices today is the lack of a co-ordinated energy, environmental, and monetary  policy that demonstrates a concern for overall stability.

*

            As usual Graves and Barnes are just posturing.  Again, they offer no real solutions.