Jesse Jackson at his best - the spinning never stops.

Last night Chicago seen its 500th homicide for 2012, its highest total since 2008 and up from 435 last year according to the Associated Press. Out of these homicides 87.5% are via the gun which i find curious because Chicago, Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

After all this is a place where you can own a handgun (1) but it has to be in your home. It has to be broken down when transported (forget the right to carry) yet even after the modification of its laws in 2010 via the Supreme Court the murder rate is on the rise. Before 2010 it was illegal to own a handgun period in Chicago and the murder rates were through the roof. We are seeing the murder rates back at that level despite the fact that bill in 2010 was aimed at encouraging self defense allowing the right to own a firearm in your home, how so?

Simply put, the bad guys don't live in your home. They are out on the street or in the alleys, where its illegal to carry a weapon. Imagine that, a criminal not minding his local authorities and respecting its laws... why the good citizen does, unarmed.

This morning "Reverend" Jessie Jackson was on CNN discussing the murder rate in Chicago, his hometown. Now normally, when he opens his mouth, hes on the offensive, spitting out venom, bigotry and lies but here the Rev was on the defensive as he tried to make sense of hate crime rates in areas with strict gun laws. When he was asked why Chicago, despite her tough laws, still have exorbitantly high murder rates his first response:

“I think about Newtown, for example, they have three or four gun ranges. There are no gun ranges in Chicago”

Now, he also addressed socioeconomic reasons, and while those are contributing factors for the high murder rates, it doesn’t change the fact that gun laws restricting law abiding citizens to carry them only create more gun deaths. When asked again the same question regarding the gun laws on the books that don’t work, Jackson replied:

 “The guns are not coming from Chicago”

Well pull me up a chair, good Rev. So you are actually acknowledging that even despite strict laws severely restricting gun ownership and forbidding the right to carry; weapons are flowing into Chicago beyond the city limits resulting in spiked homicide rates? But i thought they were illegal, how can this happen? Where have we seen this before? Sounds a lot like the Federal governments "war" on drugs, doesn't it? As I asked yesterday, how is that working out?

Prohibition doesn't work because it does nothing to address why people need or want things others feel is too dangerous or destructive to own. Its simply one person (in a form of a bureaucracy) telling another person they know better than they do. It not only infringes on freedom of choice, prohibition also dissolves the natural existing relationship between supply and demand by simply chocking off supply. Again, nothing is done about the demand. This is how people like Al Capone became legends.

Now, if I could just take a minute to clear up one tidbit of misinformation courtesy of "Revered" Jackson. I did a quick search and found at least three gun ranges in the Chicago area. Remember, when Chicago City Council voted on the new ordinance back in 2010 after they were neutered by the Supreme Court, one of the requirements before owning a firearm is:

One hour on the range and four hours of training in the classroom

Maybe, someone would be kind enough to point out to Reverend Jackson the location of these firing ranges. But, he doesn’t need it. Why would he? He has bodyguards. Funny isn’t it? Kind of like the irony of the Pope Mobile. Where’s the faith Reverend?

Drag the waters some more...

Well, it’s been exactly two weeks since the senseless tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. I said to myself as that day unfolded, I would not be a part of the problem anymore. Regardless of how small my voice may be, regardless of how much impact media has or has not on events such as this... I decided that day, no mas.

As a fellow human, you cannot grasp the horror those kids and teachers faced on that morning. As a father, I will not even allow myself to even attempt to fathom the emotion of the loss of a child, sitting innocently in a kindergarten class room, counting down the days to Christmas. My heart truly goes out to those families involved. Only a small percentage of us have to bury our own children and for these families to have to do it because of something like this, is truly unspeakable, so I won’t even waste my words to do so any longer.

As soon as this happened everyone (and rightfully so) are looking for answers. Its human nature, we are creatures so dependent on emotion. However, with human nature and emotion come mistakes. The media fans the flames with its inaccurate reporting, hyperbole and this desire to beat the other guy to the punch. It wasn’t even 15 minutes into the breaking news report, not even into the three minutes of rolling ads for boner pills, Forever Lazy's and Pepsi commercials before we seen the graphics up.

Straddled across the screen like some stripper who is about to perform her 17th lap dance of the night (with 24 more to go) the slogan and graphic were dawned. "Tragedy in Newtown" - "Tragedy in Sandy Hook" - "Connecticut school massacre" etc etc etc. Hurricanes, school shootings, dead celebrities, Presidential speeches, court verdicts... yhea, we got a graphic for that.

Who can get there first? Who can take the best photos of the kids coming out, who can get the most exclusive interview with the person closest to the massacre? Get the Aunt of a dead teacher... or how about the step-mother of a child? A survivor?? Now, that is a real prize.

From media sensationalizing comes the blame game. Blame the guns (as if you need a link or a cite for this). Blame the games and the movies. Blame the mental health community or the lack thereof. Blame the devil. Blame Marylin Manson. Oh, wait I'm getting ahead of myself. Nobody listens to Manson' anymore... gonna have to find a new whipping boy in music I suppose. Can we use Eminem?  Even the conspiracy crowd has officially claimed the attack never happened. In fact "them" are said to be all in bed together to take over the world and all of the dead must be living happily ever after at the north pole. Lots of blame - but no solutions.

The truth of the matter will not require a retro fit band-aide that we as Americans like to use for everything. The wound is much larger than that but yet so small at the same time. That's because the wound is us. We as a people are the problem. Individual responsibility is the best cure for any problem we might encounter from mounting fiscal national debt to education failures in our schools to school shootings.

Individual responsibility is hard in this case because we depend on the schools to keep our children safe. And unless your child just so happens to be attending the one school  of a sitting Presidents children, no school is safe from this type of act, as it is, right now.

But do we have to settle for how things are right now? Or should we demand more? Buzzing people in and out of locked schools is a nice idea, but all someone has to do is smash the doors or windows to gain access to hundreds if not thousands of unarmed innocent people. That’s how these turn into bloody massacres. If we can’t turn back the hands of time and (un) invent the gun, the only solution is to fight fire with fire. And do it in every school in America. It’s done in many inner cities already and it’s obviously done for the President. If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.
 
This however isn’t the topic for those in mass media; instead their focus seems to be centered on the weapons and motives of past killers instead of focusing on protecting future victims. Making guns illegal in any way shape or form will not keep guns out of criminal’s hands. Don't believe me? Tell me.... how’s that "war" on drugs working out for you? A law or ban or restriction only creates a bigger black market and thus only supports more crime and senseless deaths. This is simply supply and demand.  Yet all we hear is  #guncontrolnow. Puzzling, it is, the inability for so many to not grasp simplistic approaches like cause and effect.

Switzerland has some of the highest gun ownership in the world with 45.7 guns per 100 residents yet their gun related crimes are so low they don't even keep records according to a piece written in the BBC last year. And many of these guns are fully automatic military grade rifles (M-57 Assault rifle pictured below). Those type of weapons are already ILLEGAL here and were not used in this case... yet we have a gun problem, and the Swiss do not?

Again, restricting certain guns or outlawing guns all together even will not stop senseless gun violence or school shootings. Only a gun can stop a gun. Kids in a school are locked up sitting ducks, thus security in the form of a regular beat cop should be in place at every school in the country. We put a man on the moon, invented the automobile, invented the computer... yet we cannot protect our children while at school getting their shitty education? And for those of you who say: "what are we supposed to do, put cops in the mall as well"?

The answer is simply, no. Because if we focus on individual responsibility (including but not limited to) on things like more concealed weapons permits for those that qualify; the coverage and overlap would police itself. If you put a gun in every school office in the country it would save more lives than it would ever take by just their presence alone. Not to mention, probably foil many attacks from happening in the first place. As time goes on, we are seeing battle lines drawn between people who want choice and freedom while others want to be directed and told what to think, what to believe and when to do it. Lets not let the second amendment be another victim when in reality its the only solution. We have too many Indians, we need more chiefs.

'If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun he and Kassandra Perkins would both be alive today."

With last weeks murder/suicide of Kansas City Chief Jovan Blecher and girlfriend Kassandra Perkins, people from all walks of life often found themselves involved in this discussion in some way shape or form. While many of the details and motives remain a mystery, one thing remains clear - guns, do not kill people, people kill people. Many in the last week that have used this tragedy as a vehicle for their own agenda regarding gun laws and gun control and to my surprise it wasnt just the usual suspects on the "left". NBC's Bob Costas used the quote in the title to lead into his viewpoints of gun ownership in the country in an NFL halftime segment in last weeks Sunday night broadcast; 24 hours after the tragedy occurred. 

Agree or disagree with Costas using a sporting event to tout his political beliefs isnt the issue i have. Anyone familiar with sports knows Costas isnt one that hates the sound of his own voice. So if anyone in sports would be ignorant or arrogant enough to wade into such a controversial issue as gun control; Costas would be the man for the job. My issue isnt with him doing so from a network that is pretty decidedly liberal when it comes to their news, after-all "Lean Forward" is not just a slogan - as a verb it quite literally means to "Progress" and "Progressive" is the new word for Liberal... thus there is no hiding that networks news affiliation.

No, my issue lies squarely on the back of this notion that taking guns out of the hands of individuals will have some type of magical impact on stopping murders. The liberal mind that is hell bent on gun control and this cockamamie idea that this tragic murder could have been prevented if Belcher did not own a firearm is absurd and its a mindset closer related to the book & movie: Minority Report, as opposed to reasoning and logic.

Jovan Belcher wasn't a felon, he wasn't known to be mentally unstable nor did he even have a record. There was nothing that could have been done to keep Mr. Belcher from owning a legal firearm and obviously there is nothing that could have been done to keep him from owning one illegally either. So the issue isnt gun control or tighter restrictions; it is obviously gun ownership... period. That is not only an attack on the 2nd amendment its also a mistake on those that advocate such; as its the road to tyranny. Taking guns out of the hands of the public will not reduce crime, if anything, it will only create more of it and a bigger black market that already exists to support it. Dont believe me, ask the government how the war on drugs is going? How did the prohibition of alcohol work out?


According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a report from the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Some nut can get a gun legally or illegally and nothing will stop him from executing his despicable act before it happens. Some law abiding citizen can become emotional and beat his or her significant other with a bat or use a knife or shoot them with a gun and nothing will change that, the means that are used are of ill consequence. Crimes of passion and fits of rage are human problems, its not the choice of the instrument used to carry it out that's at fault. Trying to isolate one weapon as a problem where 99% of its owners never have to use it is just plain irresponsible. Bottom line: its just not possible in an open and free society to protect everybody from themselves.  

You want to stamp out gun violence? Allow and encourage more people to carry one. Every time there is a tragedy concerning gun violence the knee jerk reaction is the guns and the access are the blame and it couldnt be any further from the truth. The reason that one gun in a crowd of people can do so much damage is that not enough law abiding citizens carry a weapon. An overwhelming majority of gun related deaths are involving one person being armed and another person not being armed. How do you make these situation less damaging? Again... allow and encourage more people to carry a firearm.

If Mr Belcher didnt own a firearm would it have prevented her death? No idea, who knows what he may have picked up or did to her with his hands... and NFL linebacker doesnt need a gun to cause bodily harm to a women. If she had been carrying would this have prevented the death of Kassandra Perkins? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is assured... it would at least bettered her odds, without question. And that is the point, its basic mathematics... guns are the great equalizer and ill use this Ronald Regan quote to kill (pardon the pun) two birds with one stone:

"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all."

Obama Wins (shocker) but where does he go from here?

Its been a while for me putting pen to paper, in fact it will be seven months & days days from now between posts and a lot has changed since. Nothing has changed in the grand scheme of things thou, not with having re-elected President Obama. Had it been Mitt Romney would it have been much different? I don't think so, but it couldn't have gotten much worse either. For full disclosure I'm not an anti-Obama guy. I think hes grossly under-qualified for the position and has gotten in way over his head. With that said, as i have stated many times on this blog, i think too much disinformation has been put out in efforts to soil the President and many of them are gross exaggerations - like this obsession with him raising taxes & running up the debt at a record pace.

Plain and simple, Obama has not raised taxes across the board like most think he has, in fact hes been a tax cutter (if you dont count the tax on tattoos parlors and tanning bed companies). Now with that now being said, that will dramatically change over the next few years as the Bush Tax cuts are set to expire and he has stated taxes will go up for the wealthy. Then factor in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) and you are now talking about sweeping tax hikes, but to this point the narrative of him being a greedy socialist tax whore has been blatantly false.

The Debt? Hes run up the credit card at an alarming rate, but not much more than his predecessor George W Bush did in his eight years before Obama's election. When President Bush took office the National Debt stood at 5.7 Trillion, when he left it was 10.6. So when Obama took office he entered with the 10.6 Trillion, as of this morning it stands at 16.2 (bear in mind that 3/4 of Obama's first year of office was under a GWB budget). So nominally, Obama will easily be the biggest debtor in our nations history but he will will probably "only" double the debt, just as his predecessor did before him.

So, where does that leave us? I think we are in for another recession. The President will have the veto pen and i think if everything is left in place, economically its going to be a long and harsh recovery of virtually no growth. Jobs will not be plentiful and incomes will continue to be slashed through a combination of: lack of work, inflation and debt at every level, public and privately. If his broaden agenda is brought into focus and realized things will be worse. Cataclysmic economic meltdown filled with bread lines and riots in the streets? No. But stagflation circa mid 1970's? Yes.

Hopefully, the administration understands the situation we are in and does its best to curb the rising tides that are on the horizon. If not, Obama's legacy will be nothing short of a an economic dead zone. A presidency that inherited an economic crisis that was undoubtedly dire but after a stabilization, this was a regime that failed to turn the momentum around and instead kicked out its arms every-time it tried to get up off the floor.  An 8 year window of high unemployment, economic decline via the continued assault on the dollar through currency manipulation and reckless spending. "Hope" and "Change" were the buzz words of '08 and they were empty words based on the results of the last four years. Lets hope for some change in the next four. 

Tired? Or tired of living a lie?

"On Sunday, June 10th, Congressman Jesse L. Jackson,Jr. went on a medical leave of absence and is being treated for exhaustion

Exhaustion? For a part-time job where you collect 150K in salary and are granted all the travel and benefits of a celebrity with no work history to speak of. Tired, from holding a position in congress because of nothing more than being the son of a charlatan who is an alleged “face” of black America? Seems legit (sic).  

Then it dawned on me. Maybe he is tired of being under scrutiny via the House ethics investigation? Could Jesse Jackson’s son be troubled by pesky ethics investigation? I would say the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree, so that cannot be it. Maybe, just maybe he is literally tired from travel? Jet lag is a real problem and Jesse Jackson Jr has done plenty of travel via paid junkets during his time in DC.

So I took a visit over to Legistorm.com and what I found was pretty telling. Now Jackson’s 58 trips don’t come close to Maxine Waters (who at last count was the leading trip taker with over 100 trips) but I suppose all paid expense trips with a part time gig that pays six-figures can be stressing.

Now what I found interesting when looking over these paid junket trips was that many names on the most traveled list were names from members on the CBC.

If you exclude those congress members that were not holding office for any reason due to things such as election loss, retirement or death; Democrats would make up 20 of 20 in the top trip takers.

Of those Top-20 trip takers, 13 of them are members of the Congressional Black Caucus. That means 2/3 of the Top-20 come from a caucus divided by race that is not only a minority in society but a minority in congress as well, with only 40 members. If the 112 Congress has 435 Representatives and the CBC has 40 members (9%) isn’t 65% of the Top-20 trip takers out of synch statistically?

This Caucus jet sets around the country to allegedly speak about issues pertaining to black people. I suppose that is noble. Is it logical? Not according to the Constitution. After all, are not the members of congress representing a district in a state first and foremost? And if so, are these districts not composed of all types of races and ethnic groups?

How can we understand this idea that elected members of congress only bound by their skin tone, elected from various districts across the country by all types of ethnicity travel all over the country to cater to the ideas and needs of one ethnic group over everyone else actually help the districts they were elected to represent?

I simply cannot understand how this is acceptable.

Unless you have a district composed of 100% Black Americans, its disingenuous to cater to said Black American’s because you represent a district, not an ethnicity. However, if it was entirely made up of black folks; then it’s a different matter. But no district is that way.

For example, if I am white and vote in the 5^th district of Missouri and I voted for Emanuel Cleaver because I am a staunch Democrat; how does he truly represent me? If he is traveling across the country focused on the needs of Black Americans in the state of California, sharing the needs of those in Missouri its obvious he represents the needs of Black Americans in his district but what about everyone else, does he value their needs as well?   

The answer is clear; he doesn’t… well at least not as much as he does those of similar skin tone. And this isn’t just some anecdotal scenario I made up to make my point lacking data; the data is there. The fact is that 13 of the 40 members of the 112th Congressional Black Caucus represented areas where black folks were the minority. So we have 13 members of Congress on the Top-20 traveled list from the 40 member CBC. And 13 of the 40 districts in the CBC are not even black as a majority. This to me is astounding. But what does it all mean?

It means that the Congressional Black Caucus is no different than any other group of collectivists. They are limited by their own narrow definitions that they oppose and because of this opposition it’s ironically what also defines them by default. Where is the outrage? Where is the indignation for a group that is fueled not only by division and bound by their hunger for power and job security? Because remember, if Black Americans no longer voted strictly by race and political affiliations, wouldn’t these “race hustling pimps” be out of a job?

Some absolutely would. So at the end of the day, what works best for “Black America”? The politicians that keep them isolated and divided from other races, as if they can’t do for themselves? Or is it the idea of freedom, the idea that nobody should be judged on their content of their skin but yet the content of their character?

The more social programs and special attention you give to Black Americans the more you ostracize them as a whole. The division that exists in this country whether it is: political, race, religious etc is real but it can all be cured if people chose freedom and held individual liberty above all. The CBC pits race vs race. It attempts to take from one person and give to another in the name of the greater good, even at the expense of the person they are sworn to be helping. There is actual black on black crime and there is this. These are not crimes in the literal sense, but make no mistake; this is a betrayal of the highest order.   

The trough moves, so does the swine: on to Tusla.

Another black man killed at the hands of a white man, another charge of a hate crime. That is just one of the charges facing both Jake England, 19, and his roommate, Alvin Watts, 33 who are also being charged with multiple other charges including Murder-1 for the three gunshot victims who died on the 6th of April earlier this month in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Unlike the Martin/Zimmerman situation in Florida, this case has evidence based on police reports of: “admissions by both defendants as to their involvement in the three murder charges and the two SWIK (shooting with intent to kill) charges” that according to First Assistant District Attorney Doug Drummond.


This situation appears to be quite different from the shooting in Sanford, where a lot of grey area surrounds the case. Zimmerman in his role of the Martin shooting claims his innocence, while this case in Tulsa you have an admission of guilt. An admission of guilt… is well, an admission of guilt. For one, there are two survivors in the Tulsa shootings. Secondly, there are two people being accused (roommates too) thus the pool of defense the defense team can draw from will be one that is severely limited. So there is no way that the Tulsa case will play out the same as the case in Sanford. The only question here will be life in prison or lethal injection.

Now, with the case of Zimmerman, I opined back in March that the charge of a hate crime or that Martins death was racially motivated was clearly speculative, based only on the fact that Zimmerman was white while Martin was black. That’s hardly enough evidence to say that something was motivated out of hate or prejudice. That however didn’t stop Al Sharpton and Jess Jackson from sticking in their beaks to claim otherwise. Jackson went even as far to say that: “"Blacks are under attack."

I found that funny then and I find it funny now. The reality is that blacks attack more whites than whites do blacks... and they do so at an alarming rate. According to a study done by the New Century Foundation in 2005 (a non profit organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations) crimes that involve blacks and whites, blacks commit 85% of the 770,000 violent interracial crimes to the white populations 15%. Its worth noting that, American white population in the US is 4x that of black Americans.

Blacks target whites more so than any other race while committing violent crimes. In fact 45% of their victims are white to 43% being black. White people on the other hand commit only 3% of their violent crimes are against blacks. Now let’s think about these last two figures and maybe Jackson and Sharpton can give an explanation; because I don’t ever see or hear of an explanation when it comes to black on black crime. If they do speak out in these cases it’s always a community problem or it’s the nation, the illegal guns, the drugs or its our history that has failed them; I never hear ownership.


·  Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

·  Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.


This study was done in 2005; I will gladly give the benefit of the doubt and stand corrected if blacks are indeed “under attack” as Jackson says they are. All I need to do is see the evidence. Show me the numbers and show me the crimes. If we are going to just cherry pick random acts of violence and call them hate crimes or grasp on to the very few of white hate crimes committed against blacks that are an anomaly without any statistical evidence to state otherwise… then these numbers I present speak for themselves. That however won’t happen, because race and division is big business. Facts and truth mean nothing to these men. Ask Sharpton, he wouldn’t go to Tulsa because he was too busy “fundraising” in DC.

"I was scheduled to be in Tulsa this weekend but now feel that I can be more useful to the families of the victims to remain at my national convention and raise money for them," Sharpton said.

Remember who Jackson said was attacking Black America? It was “Big business” and I will say what I said a month ago regarding this: exploitation is big business.

Class warfare or socialism in action? Easter lessons for all

After countless readings, written words by myself and conversations over the years, i consider myself cemented in the mindset of freedom above all... economically and socially. This mindset of course doesn't lend itself to appeal to socialistic ideals. That however came into question today when i found myself staring over two easter baskets, pondering which one to raid.

As you can see below, the one on the right just had about nine pieces of candy. It also came with a DVD and a ball (not pictured) worth roughly $20 dollars combined. It was the basket of a 10 month old. The basket on the right, was the basket of a 9 year old. It also included a lot of chocolate worth probably $25.00. There was also two items not pictured. They were a season pass to Waldameer (amusement park) retail value of 75.00 and a Nintendo Wi game with a retail value of about 29.00.

Now, what would be "fair" would be to take a few pieces from each. I thought that at first. After a millisecond to total up the cost of each basket, i insisted on raiding the most expensive one on the right. Now, the 9 year old enters the room with me having a mouthful of chocolate and says: "Hey, that's my candy!!!" I explain to her the situation and i try to convince her that she has much more, so she should be ok with me taking from her. 

She doesn't agree. So i just simply say its half my contribution and half that other guy's (Rabbit and Claus always get unworthy credit). So therefore i am entitled to take what i want. Lesson over. So, luckily I'm not a socialist... but maybe a fascist?

Bring on the Cleaver: the Congressional Black Caucus does what they do best.

The death of Trayvon Martin has divided people in many ways; be it politically, ethnically or racially. The amount of vitriol we have seen regarding this tragedy has only been rivaled by the amount of hyperbole that accompanies it. I have already exposed the racebaiters a few weeks ago, so no need to do that again. This time I want to call out the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). 

Now what happened in that case with Martin and Zimmerman is still pending, so for me to comment would be unfair. I have made comments before regarding this matter and after I took a step back and looked at it from a wide vantage point; I find it’s just not logical to continue to do so until after the case has been closed. With that said, there is no denying people who are profiteers off of segregation have taken the opportunity to do so.

Released in a 4-page resolution this week, sponsored by CBC Chairman Emmanuel Cleaver, the CBC backed resolution calls to address the controversial “stand your ground” law and in that report is also states that Zimmerman used quote:

“unfounded assumptions and racial bias led to the use of deadly force.”

Just one problem Mr Cleaver. We have no basis or evidence that there was racial bias involved. CNN has corrected their version where they had Zimmerman saying “coon” on the 9-11 tapes to now “cold” and NBC blames a terrible edit which made Zimmerman look racist. Other then those now corrected errors, how can we draw an “assumption” or conclude there was “racial bias” involved in this case? How can Zimmerman be described as a racist? We can’t. Being that as it may be, that doesn’t stop members from an organization who lines their pockets via race card games, people who are elected many times due to their race, from using this to maximize political capital.

Let’s just pretend that this racial segregation in the form of representative caucuses is acceptable for a moment. Would it not be understandable to expect elected representatives to at least be representing the views of the dominant ethnicity of their district? Take for example; Maxine Waters, who represents the 35^th district of California. Only 35% of her constituency is black, 47% of it is Hispanic. Why isn’t she in the Hispanic caucus? Or what about Keith Ellison, who has 73% of his district identifying themselves as White?

Out of 40 members that make up the CBC, thirteen of them are representing districts that are not predominantly black. These districts show African Americans being a minority demographic, and in some cases behind both White and Hispanic populations. Yet you have politicians being elected to serve a minority demographic first and foremost, despite the fact that it took the votes from other larger racial demographics to get them elected in the first place.

The most audacious however and symbolic of this utter hypocrisy, is the Chairman of the CBC, Emmanuel Cleaver who sponsored this resolution. Mr Cleaver who has sixty-nine percent of his district being white is rushing to judgment to label this man a racist, even thou there is not information to conclude Zimmerman was what he was being accused of. Again, 69% of Mr Cleavers district is white. Yet he is chair of the Congressional “Black” Caucus, elected out of Missouri and condemning a some random Joe six-pack in Florida, some 1,200 miles away of being... racist?

Mr Zimmerman may or may not be a lot of things. Does he appear to be a creepy guy, a wannabe cop, and reckless… obviously. A murderer? It appears so, but again, the case is still pending. But, a racist? The evidence to this point states he is not and unless there is something totally unforeseen, it appears he is not a guy using “racial bias”. 

Even if CNN and NBC corrected themselves and that may have led some to believe he was a racist, I don’t see anyone from the CBC pulling back their slenderest remarks or resolutions. Ironically, the only thing we can absolutely derive from this event is that the Congressional Black Caucus is build upon segregation, intimidation, collectivism and racism. If anyone should be condemned for relying on "unfounded assumptions", its the CBC. If anyone is guilty of “racial bias” it’s the Congressional Black Caucus.

A slightly out of the box solution to our gasoline/energy problem

Imagine a policy where the US drastically cut defense expenditures, increased our dependence on foreign oil, withdrew and stopped entering wars to protect or prop up the petrodollar and pay higher consuming costs not only at the pump and grocery store but everywhere else and in between. Would you believe it? Would you even accept this as remotely possible without destroying our economy? I know it sounds crazy and no, this isn’t a page out of the Obama playbook. This would be the policy going forward if I was sitting at the top of the elitist pyramid. It's not ideal but you have to play the hand that is dealt.

I know there are “greenies” or “tree-huggers” that are reading this and smiling. I hate to disappoint but it’s not a green agenda. No, this is a strategy that would keep America not only at the top of the neocolonial power structure; it would vastly strengthen its grip. How do you suppose this is possible? First and foremost it’s a strategy centered on oil.

We have all experienced the rising gas prices. We have seen the rising prices in commodities. We have felt the gouge in the pocketbook, as trips to the grocery store have become ever increasingly more expensive. The volatile relationship of humans and fuel has taken center stage as the issue of 2012. Emerging economies cannot grow without fuel and established markets crumble if they lose the access.

If it affects everyone, then everyone has an opinion on what to do about our dependency on fossil fuels. Some say, drive the prices sky high so we can jump-start innovation for green tech. While others say “drill baby drill” using our own resources to offset rising costs. Then there are those of us in the middle. While I can see the logic behind the green push and the tapping of our resources, the reality of the situation, unfortunately, is not so pragmatic.

Oil as we know is a global commodity traded around the world. What is traded and receives the most attention is crude oil. Crude oil is by far the most lucrative oil for its producers and the most inexpensive for the consumer. Its diverse applications make in the most valued of all fuels. As far as we go here in the states, it is true; we do have vast reserves of oil, but how much of it is crude oil is a big question mark.

 

The amount of crude oil we have here in the in proven reserves (as you can see above) is nothing like they have in the Middle East. This is why the Middle East remains so vital to the entire world. Just ask Dick, before he became "Vice Dick" back in 1999 while he was CEO at Haliburton.

 “The Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow” - Dick Cheney

 
 However, there are people like Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, who say the US has billions of untapped crude reserves, just waiting to be put into production. According to Hamm and his exploration and production company, the Bakken region alone has 20 billion barrels of crude. That would equal the entire US total in proven crude reserves according to the EPA numbers. And that is just in North Dakota and Montana. 

Texas, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, California, Alaska and off shore are all seeing a new oil boom. The amount of oil we have in reserves is rivaled by no other nation in the world. Again, how much of it is crude, is open for debate, there is no denying the vast supply of fuels however.

With crude being the most lucrative and easiest to refine, it will remain the preferred fuel until the time comes when supply of it is vastly outstripped by demand creating equilibrium amongst other types of oil. If you look at the crude oil rich Middle East (who supplies over sixty percent of the world’s oil demands), its crystal clear what kind of clout you receive having the breadbasket of energy in your backyard. 

That region is home to some of the most backwards societies on the planet; yet our President will bow to their king, because he knows how vital they are. Now superimpose that type of power to the US, who already runs the petrodollar scam. So it doesn’t matter really what our reserves are made from. When the supply of crude becomes so depleted you will have all types of oil becoming economically viable. At that point, all oil will be worth not only pursuing but manufacturing and refining as well. 

So, it stands to reason, in a Machiavellian-esque outlook, the US should do all it can to pump the world of its crude, as quickly as possible. This of course will be painful in the short terms but the reality is that the price of oil isn’t going down anymore. The days of cheap gas are gone. 

The US dollar is nothing more then a mirage, its no more valuable then the paper it’s printed on. We are trading paper backed in confidence for tangible assets from other nations that have to invest in our nation just to get oil 66% of the time. Then those nations who take the dollars reinvest them back into this country, yes, that as you know is the short version of the petrodollar recycling process but I think its important to understand the significance of this and the opportunity that lies within it. That’s about as good as a scam as one can devise. If you did it, it would be called counterfeit.

When the Middle East and OPEC lose their stranglehold, the dollar dies. We have accumulated too much debt since OPEC agreed to trade oil for dollars in the early 1970's. The recoil from that action will have a dramatic impact on not only our market but the entire world market.

 

So, I say NO to: “drill baby drill”. 

I say YES, take a hatchet to defense spending and reinvest that money towards balancing the budget or subsidize gas prices for the American consumer (further pushing up consumption).

I say YES to further litigation and regulation, stifling American companies from extracting oil in the US. Bring on Green Peace and bring on the environmentalists.

I say NO to consuming 1.oz of the 695.9 million barrels we have as a nation in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Do whatever it takes to use up the rest of the world’s fuels, trading worthless paper for them in the process. The ends justify the means.   

Lets stop with the political hot potato concerning oil.

There has been a lot of talk of late centering around President Obama and the gas price hike we have seen in the US. Many people blame his policies, pushing alternative green energy over conventional energy (like Nat gas, coal and Crude). There has been people in the administration that have actually gone on record admitting as much. Dr Stephen Chu actually said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal in late 2008 (before he became part of the cabinet):

"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,"

According to the WSJ, Dr Chu would do this by quote: "raising gasoline taxes gradually over 15 years to coax consumers into buying fuel-efficient cars and discouraging sprawl".

Now, we haven't seen that happen as of yet. We already have seen however that the Administration does play favorites when it comes to the agenda or promotions of industries they see fit. We have seen that with Solyndra and GM. While that does point to an obvious flaw or at least a blurred line in the relationship between private industry and the state; it is something that isn't unique to the Obama Administration alone. It is also not he reason gas prices have gone up either these last few years.

Just like playing favorites when it comes to energy sources, the Obama Administration is guilty of a double standard in handling or at least blaming the source for fluctuations in gasoline prices. This was a stump speech in Indiana from 2008, one in which President elect Obama was campaigning on the high oil prices pushing blame on the Bush Administration and the oil companies, staying true to his populist ideals:

There have been examples of President Obama deflecting when it comes to what is happening with the price of gas, blaming everyone from speculators to people driving SUV's. So its pretty clear, the Obama Administration has favored alternative energy over conventional and he has also used double standard logic to defend the rise in oil prices.

Again, these are not reasons why gas prices have went up. As i pointed out earlier this year, we here in the US are now actually a net exporter of fuel for the first time since the 1940's, yet prices in gasoline have only went up. The reason is very simple. Its a global economy and oil is the heart of the global economy, there is very little one country can do to offset the global price that is measured in US inflationary dollars. 

Now, with that said, the biggest reasons we are seeing rises in fuel prices specifically at the pump is also simplistic. The world is consuming more oil, the supply has remain unchanged, thus the law of supply and demand have driven the price up. Just look at the demand.

 As we can see the emerging markets and growing economies are consuming more and more oil and we are consuming less. We are seeing now the fruits of their labor that comes from producing our cheap goods. The emerging economies are showing the world what it means when people say "a rising tide lifts all boats". And to the contrary, ours are staying stagnate or sinking. That's just cause and effect. Now what about supply?

 oilprice.com

As we can see here and pointed out by Gail Tverberg:

"Since 2005, world crude oil supply has bumped up against what seems to be a limit of 75 million barrels of oil a day. No matter how hard companies try to extract more crude oil, and no matter how high world oil prices rise, they seem unable to extract more than 75 million barrels a day (MBD)."

So again, supply has stayed level, while demand has risen and while some look at the price of gas and the recession and rise in prices during the recession as proof of something to use as an excuse for blaming the administration its clearly not based on fact. Here is the graph that really tells what is happening.

Chart courtesy of Gecko Software
As you can see above, the demand in oil has increased with the price, nothing fishy or speculative about that. Its just simple mathematics. What we seen in the march from 2002-2008 is what we are seeing now. 2008 wasn't some anomaly; it is reality. That is where the economic equilibrium now lies, but the more reckless spending and the more we rely on credit that dilute savings; the equilibrium will only rise in terms of dollars.

This idea that we can spend and borrow our way to prosperity is going to have some consequences; cheap oil is one of them. And when you factor in the emerging economies, it only speeds the rise in prices that much quicker. Call it cause and effect, call it 2+2= 4.... whatever you do call it, just call it what it really is, not what you want it to be. Stop pretending this is some partisan issue when clearly, this long term, cannot be a political football. Now if you want talk about getting Nat-Gas powered cars... that's a different issue. Natural gas is really where our ultimate prize lies.