Guns, Smoke And Islam

“All warfare is based on deception.”The Art of War, Chinese General Sun Tzu, 6th century B.C.

Barack Obama implemented last week 23 executive orders that strike at the heart of the 2nd Amendment. On Monday, he took his second solemn and public oath as the President of the United States.

The good news: The President knows he cannot pry our guns away from us unless it is from “our cold, dead hands.”*

The bad news: Our freshly inaugurated President is Machiavellian in obfuscating the truth behind his ultimate objective, which is to nurture Islamic influence in America and across the world.

The President would love to grab every gun from us if he could.  Testament to this fact is that Obama has surrounded himself with people eager to attack our 2nd Amendment Rights, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder who said last Friday that Obama acted within his legal authority.

Reuters reported: “Not one of the executive orders — contrary to what a few have said — impinges upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights or is inconsistent with the historical use of executive power,” Holder told a committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors at a Washington hotel.

You can watch a video clip from Holder’s speech here.

Best-selling author Richard Minter, who has written for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, writes in his new book, Leading From Behind:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. may be President Obama’s favorite cabinet member. The first black president likes to watch ESPN with the first black attorney general in the White House residence. They have much in common: strong mothers who pushed them to rise, elite educations, a decades-long hostility to gun rights…”

Last Friday, Bill Maher concluded on his HBO program “Real Time” that the majority of Democrats in Congress are committed to upholding the 2nd Amendment. Maher concluded that Obama’s anti-gun executive actions are dead in the water.

If an ultra-liberal comedian such as Maher understands this truth, why is the President making so much noise about restricting guns? I can conclude only that it is a means to a far different end.

Could the President’s ambitions be to reshape the world in his image? It would be shrewd for him to hide his objective by challenging conservatives over our right to bear arms.

Blessed Is Not This Peacemaker

Obama, Holder and secretive Presidential kingmaker Valerie Jarrett take an adversarial view of Israel and are radically in favor of Islamic rights for Palestinians over the rights of Israel, the only stable and democratic nation in the Mideast. This makes Obama the polar opposite of every President we have had dating back to Harry Truman. This President endangers Israel, America’s only ally in the region.

One of the first hints of Obama’s anti-Israel views were made evident in 2008. The Jerusalem Post interviewed Jews who knew Obama well, including Henry Gendler, who lived next door to Obama for 10 years:

Normally, Gendler recalls, Obama would be happy to stand in front of the building and talk but “when it came to Israel, it was not like that.” Instead, he says, “when Israel started to become the topic, he became very cold. He always told me that we need a more ‘balanced’ approach, which in America is a code word for being too pro-Israel.”

Gendler said that when Obama was running for President, he acquired a new affection for Israel.

“Now it’s like he wants to hug and kiss Israel every five minutes,” Gendler said. “That’s completely not the Barack I had as a neighbor. That started this year, when he was trying to get elected.”

Gendler’s words were prophetic. In June 2009, the President took to the stage at Cairo University to deliver the infamous speech in which he said he was committed to build “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.”

Then came the Arab Spring, a protest movement in Mideast countries that spurred revolutions. The United States seems to have lost any vision or direction for a more peaceful settlement for the most troubled region in the world. The ongoing crisis in Egypt, Libya and Syria prove the President is either blind to radical ambitions or is a leader who actively seeks them out.

In “Barack Obama, the Arab spring and a series of unforeseen events,” Ian Black Middle East editor for The Guardian, wrote: “Now, as the end of his term nears, the answer is clear: Obama was different from his predecessor.”

It is a radical difference and evident to all who will dare to consider the truth.

Obama once pronounced, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

And in his Cairo University speech, the President declared: “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

Hello, Mr. President! Did you miss the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks in 2005? He said that if Germany and Austria feel responsible for the massacre of Jews during World War II, they should host a state of Israel on their own soil.

Ahmadinejad declared most Jews in Israel “have no roots in Palestine, but they are holding the destiny of Palestine in their hands and allow themselves to kill the Palestinian people.”

You would think these words from Ahmadinejad would have given the then-junior Senator from Illinois pause because Iran’s president added: “Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps. Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned.”

The president of Iran and the President of the United States seem like kindred spirits. One year after Ahmadinejad’s rant, Obama wrote in his best-seller, The Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

The winds certainly have shifted, as political tornadoes are part and parcel of the Arab Spring.

Could it be that Obama’s most strategic goals are compromise, compassion and a coupling with Islam?

If true, it borders on treason against the Judeo-Christian values that shaped Western civilization and the United States.  Yet the President’s goal becomes more achievable as we waste our time defending something that not even he can yet take away from us: our 2nd Amendment rights.

The Nation senses that something is wrong. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll — taken days before Obama’s second inauguration — showed 57 percent believe America is “on the wrong track.”

Soon, far more Americans will think the Nation and the world are headed in the wrong direction.

Yours in good times and bad,

John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

*Footnote: As president of the National Rifle Association, Charlton Heston gave a speech in 2000 that garnered the attention of both anti- and pro-gun advocates. You can watch that speech here.

Obama’s Women

I wrote this headline to get your attention. The truth is that President Barack Obama is nothing like President John F. Kennedy. He isn’t even like President Bill Clinton, who pretended to be Kennedy by chasing young interns around the Oval Office instead of sleeping with Hollywood starlets or mob bosses’ girlfriends.

Instead, Obama has a much more complex relationship with women who put the Nation in greater jeopardy than any women who were friends of Kennedy or Clinton. (Fair warning: If you are a women’s rights activist, please stop reading. Otherwise, I will have to wade through all your hate email.)

Obama is no cad; he is, as Arnold Schwarzenegger might say, “a girly man.” He is not strong enough to take a leadership role as President, but instead lets two women run his life and the country. In this way, the President is a weakling reminiscent of King Edward VIII, the man who doted on Wallis Simpson’s every wish. He is not like President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had a dalliance with his driver, Capt. Kay Summersby, while he was the Supreme Allied Commander.

I have nothing against women as leaders. I would prefer Hillary Clinton as President to Obama. What I don’t like is a man with responsibility who hides behind the designer dresses of women. And, my friends, this is the man and President that Obama is.

Exhibit A: Valerie Jarrett

Late last year, Richard Minter, a New York Times bestselling writer, released his newest book, Leading From Behind.

The book jacket tells much:

Leading from Behind reveals a president who is indecisive, moody, and often paralyzed by competing political considerations. Many victories–as well as significant failures–during the Obama presidency are revealed to be the work of strong women, who led when the president did not: then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser and an Obama family confidante, whose unusual degree of influence has been a source of conflict with veteran political insiders.

Minter focuses on Jarrett, saying she has a “Rasputin-like” hold over Obama. According to Minter, Jarrett is the kingpin in the Obama Administration and she has misused “her extraordinary access” to the President. Upon further research, I discovered she has full-time Secret Service protection and a staff of nearly three dozen.

Born to American parents and raised for the first five years of her life in Iran, Jarrett shares many of the same principles Obama has regarding the future and diminished role for the United States.

Jarrett is an African-American intellectual who launched the careers of both the first lady and the President beginning in the early 1990s. She influences foreign and domestic policies of the President, from Obamacare to his staunch anti-Israel position.

They are reportedly kindred spirits and, while Jarrett has managed to stay under the liberal media’s radar, Minter’s book has flushed out the truth about this woman:

Jarrett’s White House role is unprecedented. She meets privately with the president at least twice a day with no one else present. Her influence is enormous and wide-ranging. She wields informal power, like a first lady; scheduling power, like a chief of staff; and power over policy, like a special envoy.  She has the unusual freedom to put herself in any meeting she chooses and to set the priorities as she sees fit. When The New York Times’s Robert Draper asked Obama if he “runs every decision past her,” the president answered immediately: “Yep. Absolutely.”

Every decision?

Yes, Jarrett’s scope is as unlimited as it sounds. She has “wide latitude over how she spends her day” and that makes her “close to omniscient.”

Exhibit B: Michelle Obama

This comes from People magazine. (I admit that while my wife buys it, I do read it — or at least look at the pictures.) People recently published its special year-end edition which included a long interview in which Obama seems fixated about his wife and daughters. Included among the many photos of the President and the first lady is one with this cutline: “’ANGLE, ANGLE!’ Mrs. Obama (with the President in the Palm Room Dec. 6) tried to position her husband just so. ‘He has only one good side.’”

On May 14, Obama was speaking to graduates of Bernard College: “You can be stylish and powerful, too. That’s Michelle’s advice.”

The first lady’s hands-on style may be far more ambitious than just passing on advice.

Last month, actor Samuel L. Jackson came out as a supporter of Michelle Obama as a Presidential candidate. Jackson, an outspoken liberal who favors greater government involvement in poor urban areas, told Newsweek that the first lady is a “Superwoman” who could hold any office she wants.

If Michelle Obama were to run for the highest office, her campaign would likely be orchestrated by the person who mentored her in Chicago, Jarrett.

Newsweek reported that James Clyburn, a high ranking African-American member of the House, also can see Michelle Obama in office.

“She’s honest and straightforward, which is not what you see in Washington much. She is exactly what we need around here,” he said.

So far, Michelle Obama has denied any political ambitions; but, then again, Hillary Clinton made similar claims.

Most first ladies have considerable influence over their husbands. Nancy Reagan was perhaps President Ronald Reagan’s only close personal friend. And while Nancy Reagan was protective of her husband and even had some top advisers fired, she stayed on the periphery of the Presidency, using her influence to help people “just say no” to drugs.

I am not claiming that the first lady should not be the first and strongest backer of her husband. What I am saying is that we do not cast our vote for the first lady; we cast it for her husband.

My question: Just when you think the end is in sight (regrettably, that will be four years from now), is it possible for the Obama family to remain in the White House for another eight years beyond the end of Barack Obama’s Presidency? It is conceivable that there is enough support for Michelle Obama to make a run at the White House in the 2016 election. Her odds may be slim, but the potential exists to stretch the Obamas’ reign to the year 2024.

I wonder whether either the Clintons or the Obamas have found the loophole around the 22nd Amendment. Passed on March 21, 1947, and ratified by the States in 1951, it limited a President to two four-year terms. It was a different era; I doubt anyone gave consideration to the idea that Bess Truman would extend the Truman Presidency another eight years.

Regardless of what may happen four years from now, we are stuck with Barack Obama, a President who, according to friends and critics, is unusually closeted and who is influenced too much by two women in his White House. Who would think that when it came to Presidential politics we would miss Marilyn Monroe?

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers Energy & Gold Report

The Obama Car: Unaffordable, Unreliable And Ultimately Dirty

Four more years with Barack Obama as our President, and we are likely to see many green schemes whose time has not come. Who can doubt that the idiocy of the electric car is just coming into fruition? It will mark only more than a century of engineering on a project that shows little spark and even less hope.

Never fear, electric lovers; Obama has chipped in $5 billion in taxpayer money behind his goal of having 1 million electric cars on U.S. roads by 2015.

Never mind that GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney said it was money wasted on “losers.” It is such a feel-good idea that people couldn’t help but embrace it. Then again, people have never been all that smart when it comes to electric cars.

When I moved to Spokane, Wash., in 1981 with my new wife and our baby I still had the last remnant of my bachelorhood. It was my 1977 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am, fire-engine red with a screaming chicken on the hood that covered the 400-cubic-inch engine. It also had a shaker hood that rattled when the V-8 was just idling noisily as the exhaust moved through the Hollywood mufflers.

Because it was bought in Canada, it also had a block heater on the engine. A block heater is nothing more than a coil that you plug in to an electric socket at night to keep the engine warm so a car will start during subzero-temperature winter nights in Canada.

A middle-aged man in a nice suit saw my muscle car idling at a stop sign in Spokane and noticed the electric plug that came out from the front to power the small electric heater.

“Is that one of them new electric cars?”

I explained it wasn’t and gave it some gas to prove it when the light turned green. Yet the truth was that what I was driving was much more practical than any electric car built during that era.

I know this because my dad — an oil man, of all things — was pretty sure that gasoline costs were going to soar. In the late 1970s, he almost bought a pure electric car from American Motors Corporation: the Electron. The car was extremely expensive. As I recall, it cost more than $20,000, which is $60,000 in today’s dollars. Worst of all, round trip from where my dad lived to his office in downtown Spokane was 30 miles. The extended range on the Electron was about 30 miles. My dad didn’t have to be a genius to know that he would have to push his car home some nights.

More than four decades later, the public is still a long way from embracing the electric car, despite how many tax credits Obama throws at it. Electric-vehicle sales since 2011 totaled fewer than 50,000 through last fall, only 5 percent of Obama’s target.

Bloomberg reported: “The reality is: that business model isn’t there yet,” said Brett Smith, co-director of manufacturing, engineering and technology at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “It isn’t there yet for volume. It isn’t there yet for reaching the mass consumer. And it probably isn’t going to be there for a while.”

Yet Tesla Motors, Inc. is pushing its electric car upon the American people with the help of the President.

In November, Reuters reported:

The re-election of President Barack Obama will likely mean a continuation of the U.S. government’s policy promoting electric and hybrid vehicles, Elon Musk, the chief executive of electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc , said on Monday.

“I think that we can expect at least that things will continue as they have,” Musk told reporters at an event in New York. “I wouldn’t expect it to get any worse for electric vehicles, hopefully it will get a little better.”

That certainly was not the conclusion of a new study released at the end of 2012 by the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs. It cast doubt on the Obama Administration’s goal of putting 1 million plug-in electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

“The perceived drawbacks of electric vehicles outweigh the advantages for most consumers,” the study said.

Stated a press release from the university: “Consumers are somewhat more interested in buying hybrid electric vehicles, with a gasoline-powered backup engine, than electric-only vehicles. This suggests there may be better market potential for hybrids like the Chevy Volt, Toyota Plug-In Prius and Ford C-Max Energi Plug-In.”

Indiana University researchers surveyed more than 2,300 adult drivers in 21 large U.S. cities and found car buyers in Dallas; Fort Worth, Texas; San Antonio; Indianapolis; Detroit; and Nashville, Tenn., show very little interest in electric cars.

Edmunds Inside Line concluded on Dec. 27: “As quickly as battery technology is advancing, pure electric vehicles still present too many compromises for the average consumer in terms of range and cost.”

One last thought: What if Obama and his green backers ever got their way and produced not 1 million but tens of millions of electric cars? What would juice up all those wall sockets that would charge those cars? After all, electricity isn’t free. Just ask any person who has to pay an electric bill. And a car is going to suck a lot more electricity than this computer I am typing on.

Businessman and economist Grady Means may have explained it best in The Washington Times:

Since the 1970s, the U.S. Department of Energy has “invested” more than $1 trillion in “alternative energy” schemes. I say “schemes” because after all of these investments, solar power, the darling of the White House and its friends and the recipient of massive grants and subsidies, results in one ten-thousandth of the electrical production in America. Wind power, after scarring a huge amount of America’s most beautiful scenery, amounts to a whopping 3 percent of electricity production. If these dials have barely moved after 40 years and $1 trillion, they are not going to move much in the next half-century. If electric cars ever roll, they will be powered by electricity from coal (nearly 50 percent of all electricity production), nuclear (20 percent), natural gas (20 percent) and hydro (most of the rest). In other words, expensive “electric cars” are actually, largely, “coal cars” — welcome to the 19th century.

Yes, my friends, expensive, unreliable cars with poor performance may not be so clean after all.

Obama went back on vacation last week to Hawaii. I think this future transportation infrastructure that he has dreamed up works great when he rolls his Presidential golf carts across the rolling green countryside on the Island. But it isn’t very practical when it comes to making America clean or competitive.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers Energy & Gold Report

Cliffs: Fiscal And Real

It seems our elected representatives in Washington celebrate the English tradition of Boxing Day. That would explain why Congress took off Dec. 26 before coming back last Thursday, even though the Nation is facing an economic catastrophe.

Like most of you, I was working on Boxing Day and read that President Barack Obama cut short his Hawaii Christmas break to get back to Washington to deal with the impending fiscal cliff.

Monday was the deadline for $600 billion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts.

Economists predict these tax increases and spending cuts could send the U.S. economy back into a recession by the end of next year. Americans will see their January paychecks shrinking as they pay higher taxes that automatically engage unless the George W. Bush tax cuts are extended.

It is expected that the average middle class family will see its tax bill go up by about $2,000 a year.

Regardless of whether Congress was able to cut the mustard before yesterday, a second economic shoe may have already dropped. The United States may have already fallen into a renewed recession. This would make Congress and the President a day late and a trillion dollars short by the time something meaningful is done.

It is already being reported that U.S. holiday retail sales this year were the weakest since 2008. That was the Christmas the Nation was in its deepest recession since the Great Depression.

There is already a litany of excuses as to why retail sales were weak this past Christmas, including bad weather (as if the United States always has good weather in December).

In the final analysis, millions of Americans didn’t spend what they typically do this time of year because they fear that the wheels on the American economy have already slipped over the edge of a very steep precipice.

The Log Jam Of 1983

My Dad, Vern, had a tradition to cut lumber off his acreage at the start of the new year. So it was on Jan. 1, 1983. My best friend, Dave, and I were riding on the wheel covers of Dad’s red Massey Ferguson 35-horsepower tractor, which had a front-end bucket to load logs on after they were cut down with a chain saw.

Men of my generation like to golf or ski, but Dad had been through the Depression and, regardless of any financial success he earned, he was determined to be self-reliant even through his later years. That meant growing a large garden in the summer, canning vegetables in the fall and cutting wood in the winter. He kept a potbellied woodstove in the kitchen and functional fireplace in the living room.

He had 80 acres of land near Chattaroy, Wash. Half of it was on a plateau; that’s where he grew Northwest poplar trees and had a corral for his two horses. The other 40 acres was on a steep slope facing north; it was full of wild ponderosa pine trees.

While he loved the outdoors, my father’s mind typically wandered as he thought about where the economy was headed and, therefore, where his subscribers should invest their money. You can imagine that in cases with machinery and gravity, this could be a hazardous combination.

Besides the gears, the Massey had a high drive and a low drive. We were only in second gear as Dad pointed the tractor toward the steep slope. While I was not nearly as experienced with machinery as Dad was, I had grown up around tractors and I knew we were in high drive as we headed down the steep trail that twisted and turned between the 50-foot high pines.

“Dad,” I shouted over the engine, “we’re going too fast!”

He must have had his mind on the markets. On what was a grade of more than 10 percent, he made a critical error. He forgot the tractor didn’t have a synchromesh transmission. You couldn’t gear it down like it was a sports car. So when he put his left foot on the clutch and tried to shift to low, the 2-ton tractor began to freewheel.

Immediately, we were going dangerously fast, perhaps 20 mph, with Dave and me holding on for our lives.

Dad had the presence of mind to hit the brakes — specifically, the left brake. The Massey had a single brake for each back wheel. That allowed the operator to pivot it. In case of an emergency stop, both brakes should be applied by landing your foot squarely on both of them.

The left rear wheel bit hard, but the right rear wheel continued to spin. The tractor did a sharp pivot. For a moment, I thought it was going to roll.

We got lucky that day. The tractor came to a complete stop. Dad put the gearshift into low, and we slowly continued down the trail to the fallen pines that needed to be culled. A few hours later, the firebox outside the house was full and the fireplace was ablaze.

No Such Happy Ending For America

It would be one thing if America had to endure the fiscal cliff that was presented Monday. But the Nation is so deeply in debt that we face a continuous series of cliffs. The President and Congress are either unable or unwilling to see that the Nation safely navigates this trail. Sooner or later, that means the odds are going to catch up with America, and there is going to be a wreck. In this case, it won’t be just three people; it will be 300 million.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Three Gs In Unlucky ’13

With less than a week before the New Year, I wanted to share with you three pitfalls we face in 2013.

But first let me brag: I am batting 1,000 as a prognosticator regarding the end of the world.

Two years ago this week, I wrote What Would You Resolve To Do If The World Were To End In 2012?.

In it, I said: “I don’t give a whole lot of weight to the Mayans and their calendar, even if they did build a great empire. If they really had a crystal ball you would think they would have been forewarned that the Spaniards were bringing smallpox to the Yucatán in the 16th Century and they wouldn’t have let themselves be enslaved to relatively few soldiers wearing funny hats and riding strange animals.”

I felt the odds were on my side since people have been predicting the end of the world long before Michel de Nostradamus started writing his prophecies in 1550. Besides, if I was wrong and the world had ended last week, who would be left to give me a hard time? It was a good bet.

As for my three predictions regarding what is going to happen in 2013, I think they are almost as assured.

No. 1: Gridlock

The Nation seems as divided today as it was during the Vietnam War.

This was hit upon two weeks ago by retiring Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who used his final Senate floor speech to urge Congress to put partisan rancor aside to break Washington’s gridlock.

“It requires reaching across the aisle and finding partners from the opposite party,” said the Democrat-turned-independent, who was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. “That is what is desperately needed in Washington now.”

After 24 years in the Senate, Lieberman said he wished Washington could erase gridlock because it stands as “the greatest obstacle” to finding compromises to the Nation’s problems.

Lieberman might has well have said that he wishes there really were a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny.

Just ask the editors of Newsday who ran an opinion piece last month titled “How Barack Obama benefits from gridlock in Washington,” which stated:” Every lobbyist in Washington knows that whoever can advocate that the government do nothing or defer a matter until later has the advantage.”

The fight in Washington next year will be about money. It is a war of attrition, much as World War I was. Neither sides of the aisle are going to do anything other than hang on until a real transformative President is elected (hopefully from the GOP). That means there will be scant compromise by the people we have elected who are supposed to oversee what is best for the Nation and not what is best for them.

No. 2: Greed

The investment scams being orchestrated by Wall Street institutions, especially investment banks, are of the magnitude of which the robber baron industrialists of a century ago could not have dreamed.

Washington is so afraid to let the other shoe drop in the ongoing recession that they have given big banks carte blanche permission for them to continue their reckless lending and investment practices regardless of the long-term consequences to the Nation.

Last week, The Economic Times put the following headline on a story by The Associated Press: “Too big to jail? HSBC executives avoid money laundering charges.”

The AP reported:

When the Justice Department announced its record $1.9 billion settlement against British bank HSBC last week, prosecutors called it a powerful blow to a dysfunctional institution accused of laundering money for Iran, Libya and Mexico’s murderous drug cartels.

But to some former federal prosecutors, it was only the latest case of the government stopping short of bringing criminal money laundering charges against a big bank or its executives, at least in part on the rationale that such prosecutions could be devastating enough to cause such banks to fail.

They say it sounds a lot like the “too big to fail” meme that kept big but sickly banks alive with the support of taxpayer-funded bailouts. In these cases, they call it, “Too big to jail.”

The AP reported that Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney Eric Holder following the HSBC settlement, in which he wrote that the government “appears to have firmly set the precedent that no bank, bank employee, or bank executive can be prosecuted even for serious criminal actions if that bank is a large, systemically important financial institution.”

This stems from the Federal government’s dread of ruffling any feathers of big banks for fear that there will be a Wall Street sell-off of the banks’ stocks, which would lead to a domino of failures such as happened in 2008 when Lehman Brothers collapsed. Washington knows it does not have the financial wherewithal to initiate another massive bank bailout.

No. 3: Guns

In the wake of the tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, supporters of the 2nd Amendment are being asked: “Do you want to see this kind of violence continue?”

It is ridiculous presumption, but it is being made every day.

Last week, in TownHall.com, Susan Brown wrote:

Before Americans were able to corporately exhale upon hearing the news about the Connecticut shooting, liberals hopped on the gun control bandwagon. One of MSNBC’s many loose cannons, Ed Schultz, went on a rant saying, “Hiding behind the Second Amendment doesn’t cut it anymore,” and described our founders as slave-owning bigots. It’s real hard to wrap your hands around the hypocrisy of those who cry giant crocodile tears over the loss of these 20 precious children (and they should), but care little about millions of children who will never see the light of day due to abortion.

And here we go again; Progressives are manipulating the Sandy Hook massacre as a way to strike down the Second Amendment. Truth is, gun control is like putting a bandage on a gaping wound.

Brown hit the nail square on. In 2013, we can expect a lot more urging from the liberal media and Democrats in 2013 to limit our 2nd Amendment right.

The good news is that the world won’t end in 2013, and America will carry forward.

I want to leave you with these words from one of the greatest men of the 20th Century, Winston Churchill: “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

We must be patient while our opposition exhausts wrong-minded policies.

Wishing you all the best in the coming New Year,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

The NFL Needs Its Head Examined Before It Advocates Gun Control

December has been a tough month in the National Football League and not just because of the hard-fought games that were played by teams racing to the playoff finish line. The NFL was rocked by a gun crime, and now some around the league are advocating tougher gun laws.

According to Kansas City police, on Dec. 1, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher fatally shot Kasandra Perkins, his girlfriend and the mother of his 3-month old daughter, after waiting outside the house that he and Perkins shared. He then drove to Arrowhead Stadium, where he encountered Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli.

“I’m sorry, Scott,” he said. “I’ve done a bad thing to my girlfriend already. I want to talk with (linebackers coach Gary) Gibbs and (head coach) Romeo (Crennel).”

Belcher thanked them for all they had done for him. He then fatally shot himself in the head.

Belcher was a fourth-year player from West Babylon, N.Y., who played college ball at the University of Maine. In March, he signed a $1.9 million contract with the Chiefs worth.

The day after the Belcher murder-suicide was NFL Sunday. During halftime of the “Sunday Night Football” game, renowned sports commentator Bob Costas gave an on-air statement: “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

Commentators at FOX News agreed that the halftime preaching 24 hours after the murder-suicide was the wrong time and place to speak out against guns.

An opinion piece on FOX News took Costas to task:

Even if no weapon existed, the strength differential is so large that Belcher could have easily killed Perkins in any number of ways. The same is true, sadly, about suicide. There are so many ways that Belcher could have killed himself, including crashing his car at a high rate of speed into a wall or even another car as he drove to Arrowhead Stadium.

That set off liberals who want to use this tragedy as a good reason to weaken the 2nd Amendment.

Two days after the murder, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart opened “The Daily Show” with the controversy surrounding the Belcher murder-suicide by attacking supporters of the 2nd Amendment who, Stewart insisted, are the real ones who always discuss gun control at inappropriate times. (Keep in mind it was Costas’ anti-gun comments that got the whole thing going.) Stewart even mocked FOX News host Laura Ingraham.
[hulu id=pvsmprov7-o-mwh2qkqnbw width=512 end_time=302]

Battered Brains

Remember the ad with the egg in the frying pan? “This is your brain. This is drugs. This is your brain on drugs.”

They could do another. “This is your brain. This is football. This is your brain on football.”

With regard to collision sports, I have numerous years of experience as a player and a coach. I was a mediocre football player in high school. In my early 30s, I took up boxing and was abysmal. Today, I have aches and pains and, sometimes, I still get jaw pain and headaches which I believe come from the few concussions I received.

Fortunately, I wasn’t good enough to hang around long enough to have serious head trauma issues. But I got to witness plenty of people who had boxed or played football long after they should have retired.

My two sons also got off lucky. My eldest was a runner-up in the U.S. Junior Nationals in boxing and later had a five-year college scholarship in football. While he is a fierce defender of those sports, he admits he got lucky because he was only “dinged” here and there during his playing days. (Being dinged means taking a mild hit to the head — mild being blurred vision, nausea, headaches.)

As a teenager, my younger son trained at a professional wrestling gym, B.J.’s, in Calgary, Canada. That gym was a starting point for many famous professional wrestlers, including Bret “Hit Man” Hart and his brothers — all of whom had illustrious and lucrative careers in WWE.

When it comes to professional wrestling, don’t let the acting and showmanship fool you; wrestlers take terrible punishment, equal to what boxers or football players endure.

These sports gave my sons confidence and lifelong friendships. But if I had known what I know now about collision sports, I wouldn’t have let my sons step on a football field, climb through boxing ring ropes or walk onto a wrestling mat. I have seen too many of these athletes kill themselves and others — often without using a gun. And the notion that these athletes’ brains have not been traumatized and that they are killing simply because they have easy access to guns is ludicrous.

Such is the case with Chris Benoit, a former WWE champion who in 2007 at the age of 40 committed one of the most heinous crimes ever. He did it without using a gun.

Over the course of three days at their large home, Benoit first strangled his wife, Nancy, after binding her. He then strangled to death his 7-year-old son, Daniel, before killing himself beneath a weight lifting machine.

The Fifth Estate, a TV news program in Canada, did an investigation into the Benoit crime and the link between brain damage and violence. The program reported:

The hunt for clues linking damage Benoit had done to his brain in the ring, and his last, ghastly acts, began with a phone call from the former wrestler and Harvard graduate, Chris Nowinski, to Mike Benoit for the brain of his dead son. Nowinski had a theory about the cumulative effects of years of concussions on the brains of athletes like Chris Benoit.

Nowinski had himself taken enough hits in the ring and on the football field to appreciate the long-term damage of concussions.

The Benoit murder-suicide struck Nowinski as being uncannily similar to the former football players who committed suicide after displaying increasingly erratic behaviour.

  • Former Pittsburgh Steeler Terry Long died at the age of 45 in June, 2005 after drinking antifreeze.
  • Ex-Pittsburgh lineman Justin Strzelczyk drove his car into oncoming traffic on September 30, 2004, crashing into a tanker truck, losing his life in the explosion. He was 36 years old.
  • Former Philadelphia Eagle and father of three, Andre Waters, died of self-inflicted wounds when he took a shotgun to his head in November, 2006. He was 44.

Analysis of their brain tissue revealed the presence of a protein usually seen in the brains of elderly people with dementia, but almost never in normal middle-aged men.

Doctor Julian Bailes at the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes, at the University of North Carolina, studied the after-effects of concussions among 3,000 former NFL players in their retirement years.

“What really surprised us was the amount of mental and cognitive problems that they were having, and also depression,” says Dr. Bailes.

An updated list should include Junior Seau, an NFL linebacker named to 12 Pro Bowls. It has been suggested that his decision to die from a gunshot wound to the chest rather than the head was so scientists could study his brain. That would be consistent with the 2011 suicide of former NFL player Dave Duerson, who also shot himself in the chest and left a suicide note requesting that his brain be studied for trauma.

It seems simple. Guns don’t kill. People whose brains are damaged playing extremely violent sports over many years sometimes kill. Boxing, professional wrestling and especially the NFL should make it their focus to protect their athletes rather than spout off about guns.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Hypocrisy Served With Rice

There is no limit to the hypocrisy of the Administration of President Barack Obama. The latest example is the “green” President’s candidate for secretary of state, Susan Rice.

The Democrats have been hypercritical of many Republicans for lining up against a black woman who is Obama’s choice to replace Hilary Clinton to oversee the U.S. Department of State. The race card has once again been tossed into the ring.

Congress’ top-ranking black lawmaker says he suspects Republicans are pillorying Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, because she is black.

Criticism of Rice began after her Sept. 16 comments regarding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Rice said the attack began as a “spontaneous reaction” to an anti-Islamic video widely watched in the Muslim world that had also set off protests elsewhere.

Later, we learned that simply was not the truth. According to the State Department, the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was not some spontaneous outburst but a well-executed attack organized and launched by a terrorist cell of al-Qaida.

Many right-thinking Americans were outraged by Rice’s characterization of the Libyan attack, including Representative Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., who penned a letter to President Barack Obama saying Rice’s public comments after the Benghazi attack “caused irreparable damage to her credibility both at home and around the world.”

According to the letter, which was signed by 96 other Congressmen, Rice “either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter.”

It said replacing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with Rice as “the face of U.S. foreign policy” in Obama’s second term “would greatly undermine your desire to improve U.S. relations with the world and continue to build trust with the American people.”

Democrats Play The Race Card

Representative James Clyburn, D-S.C., along with other black Democrats, say upset Republicans continually use variations of the word “incompetent” to describe Rice, a Rhodes Scholar and former senior fellow at The Brookings Institution.

Clyburn, who is the third-ranking House Democrat, told The Washington Post that the Republicans’ choice to be critical of Rice’s remarks is one thing, but calling her incompetent amounts to using racial “code words.”

“We in the South know what that means,” he said. “I take offense when people use those words. I have a problem with them. They are going to disagree with Rice’s politics, but if they do, just say she’s wrong,” Clyburn told The Post. “When you apply the word ‘incompetent,’ that personalizes this thing, it goes beyond politics, because it’s about who and what she is — it’s character assassination.”

If you accept Clyburn’s logic, you can’t say a black person is incompetent. If you do, you are making a racist remark.

And Clyburn isn’t alone in his beliefs. Congressional Black Caucus Chair Marcia Fudge suggested Rice was targeted by the GOP because of her race as well as her sex. (The Democratic Representative from Ohio must have forgotten that the GOP nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President four years ago while a black woman, Condoleezza Rice, was George W. Bush’s Secretary of State.)

Last Wednesday, The Baltimore Sun weighed in the Republican challenge of Rice:

Approval of nominees to cabinet positions is by law the prerogative of the Senate. Certainly the president is entitled to his opinion as to who the nominee should be, but at the same time the Senate is required to state that he has made a mistake.

The president is not omnipotent; he is human in his choices which may involve political considerations and even bias. The Republican Party not only has the right but the duty to question his judgment on any of his cabinet selections, much less one that helps establish our foreign policy.

The Real And Very Rich Susan Rice

Before anybody starts feeling too sorry for Rice, it is important to understand what is really going on with the Democratic Party.

It is politics as usual for the Democrats to portray Obama, a former community organizer on the mean streets of Chicago, and the first lady as people who want nothing more than to help the downtrodden. This fairy tale ignores Michelle Obama’s J. Mendel cap-sleeve jacket that cost $6,800, her $540 Lanvin sneakers or the fact the first family vacations in the ultra-exclusive Martha’s Vineyard.

But the secretary of state, the Nation’s core representative to the world, should exclude politics. And the facts indicate that not only may Rice be incompetent but the Democrats are not being honest about her ability to be an honest broker — especially when it comes to the Mideast, which is in as much or more turmoil right now than it has ever been.

Rice would be the envy of anyone in the oil patch that I have ever met. This poor black woman holds tens of millions of dollars of petroleum stocks locked into a portfolio that makes her look a lot more like J.D. Rockefeller than Rosa Parks.

If this hypocrisy weren’t enough, much of Rice’s money is betting on the future of Canada’s oil sands.

On Earth reports that one-third of Rice’s personal wealth is invested in Canadian energy interests, much of it in Canada’s oil sands industry.

This seems a major conflict for Rice, who has royally screwed the pooch when it comes to reporting honestly about the Mideast.

As her confirmation looms, it is important to remember Arab sands sit atop two-thirds of the world’s conventional oil reserves. Ensuring security in that region won’t be a financial concern for Rice. She has most of her money locked up safely in 12 Canadian oil sands companies — companies that will benefit greatly from a Mideast meltdown.

Planes, Trains And Pipelines

A wonderful movie to watch during the holidays is “Planes, Trains and Automobiles.” In a classic scene the uptight character Neal Page, played by Steve Martin, turns around while sitting on the freeway beside his newfound and troublesome companion Del Griffith, played by the late John Candy. The car that Page believes Griffith rented with his own money is on fire.

“You finally did it to yourself,” says Page laughing.*

In the case of Rice, the Democrats may have finally done it to themselves. Rice’s personal fortune is backing Canada’s oil sands, an industry that is of vital importance to the United States. And while African-Americans in the Democratic Party are enthusiastic to champion her as the future secretary of state, the Greens are not — and for good reason. Huffington Post reports:

(Rice) would oversee the Keystone XL pipeline proposal if appointed to lead the State Department. But the pipeline review isn’t the only environmental issue the next secretary of state will have to handle.

Clinton said earlier this year that energy is a top issue and that the U.S. is reshaping its foreign policy to reflect that. She created a new office within the State Department to deal with energy issues and launched an initiative to attack “short-lived climate pollutants.”

In a recent report, E&E’s Lisa Friedman called Rice’s climate change record “thin,” pointing out that she has done little to fight global warming (this woman can’t be all bad). Friedman quoted Frank Loy, who served as undersecretary of state for global affairs in the Administration of President Bill Clinton, as saying: “She doesn’t have much of a record on climate change issues because they haven’t been really the issues she felt were her job to promote.”

So if Rice is confirmed, there could be silver lining in a dark cloud, if only because she is one of the few Democrats who understand that the Mideast is not a trustworthy supplier of crude oil. Then again, she might be every bit as incompetent as some Republicans say. With the situation in the Mideast the way it is now, that is the last thing that America can endure.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

* Note: It is fun to remember that in the movie “Planes, Trains and Automobiles,” Steve Martin’s character only thought that John Candy’s character had rented the car. It turned out that Candy’s character used Martin’s character’s credit card to rent it.

America’s Economy Is Stuck

Upon his re-election, President Barack Obama pledged to get America’s economy moving again. It is troubling that the President made this same promise four years ago, yet America’s economy is still stuck.

The Federal government and the Federal Reserve have injected trillions of dollars into the economy and reduced interest rates to their lowest levels in history, yet America’s economy is still stuck. And reckless attempts by Obama and the Fed to drag it forward will eventually destroy it.

I grew up in the country, and I saw a lot of things get stuck in snow and mud: trucks, tractors, even a snowmobile. What I remember most clearly is that when I was 10, my dad’s 1966 Lincoln became immobile. It was a white, four-door Continental with the signature rear suicide doors (they opened backward, making it an easy car to jump from if you were in the back).

In the mid-1960s, my father built a log cabin beside Lake McGregor in Southern Alberta. The lake runs along a thin valley he lived above as a boy in the early 1900s, when his parents were homesteaders.

The equipment that built the cabin had come and gone, as had the permafrost. When he took our family to see the finished cabin, the spring thaw was in full force. We drove beside the lake on a cow trail — not a road.

It didn’t take long for the big Ford to sink right up to its fenders. Loaded down with building materials and people, not even the Lincoln’s massive 460 cubic inch engine could pull us free, despite my dad’s heavy-footed attempts to get it rolling.  It turned out to be a car that could pass anything except a gas station or a mud trail.

Eventually, two big tractors towed the car onto dry land. Unfortunately, the car’s transmission remained in the mud and muck. That beautiful car was a write-off.

That car was built during the high-level mark for Detroit. In 1966, U.S. auto companies were building one out of every two cars sold in the world.

A decade after that Lincoln slipped deep into the mud, Detroit was also slipping toward failure. In the 1970s came the Chrysler bailout. In the late 1980s, President George H.W. Bush instituted protectionism for all U.S. automakers. And just four years ago this month, President George W. Bush kept America’s auto industry afloat by giving a $17.4 billion bailout to General Motors Co. and Chrysler.

Just like my dad did that day on the cow trail, the Federal government and the Fed keep flooring the gas pedal. Rather than pumping gasoline into an immovable vehicle they are pumping money into an immovable economy.

Policymakers simply will not accept that the U.S. economy is permanently stuck.

It hasn’t always been that way. Starting with Lincoln (the President, not the car), U.S. gross domestic product grew by more than 3 percent per year. The growth continued until I was a kid. That was 100 years of consistent growth, a record untouched by any nation in history.

But America’s economic growth rates have fallen significantly in the past two decades. America is getting weaker, not stronger.

Reported GMO Quarterly Letter last month: “Going forward, GDP growth (conventionally measured) for the U.S. is likely to be about only 1.4% a year, and adjusted growth about 0.9%.”

Today, American manufacturing contributes 9 percent of GDP. In 1966, manufacturing made up more than 20 percent of GDP. GMO Quarterly Letter predicts that by 2040 manufacturing will make up only 5 percent of GDP.

Another High Level Mark In 1966

The first year the Dow Jones industrial average reached 1,000 was 1966. Today, it trades around 13,000. You might think that if your parents had left you a share in the DJIA, you would be 13 times richer. That isn’t so. What a dollar would buy you in 1966 now costs more than $7. In today’s money, the 1966 DJIA was priced at 7,000. Those numbers are given to us by the Federal government and do not reflect the true decline of the dollar’s purchasing power.

If you bought a share of the Dow 46 years ago and held it (not accounting for dividends), you haven’t even doubled your money.

The Federal government has a lot of people fooled into thinking we can pull out of the economic morass simply by printing more money. Money in itself isn’t more wealth; it is just more money.

It is no different than owning 100 shares of a stock at $100 per share. The board of that company decides to do a two-for-one stock split. One morning, you have twice as many shares. But now they are priced at $50 per share — not $100.

The commentary by Ben Inker in November’s GMO Quarterly Letter sums up how priming the monetary pump isn’t going to be helpful and may, in fact, be harmful:

According to the Fed, an important goal of current monetary policy is to drive asset prices higher, generating a wealth effect that will lead to more spending and economic growth. There is a significant problem with this policy from a theoretical standpoint, though. The problem boils down to this: while Fed policy actually can cause rational investors to bid up the prices of assets, it probably can’t cause a wealth effect if investors truly are rational. Because the truth is that for the majority of investors, current Fed policy is taking them backwards, despite higher asset prices. The slightly odd corollary to this fact is that the less effective current Fed policy is at boosting the economy, the longer it is likely to persist, leaving rational investors in the position of hoping the damn thing works so that it will end, but unwilling to participate in the actions that would lead to success.

Real wealth comes down to real jobs, and the United States simply is not creating them at the pace it once did. The wealth you read about in the stock market is all smoke, and it can dissipate just as quickly.

Action to take: The trading wheels on Wall Street may be spinning just as fast as the double-ply tires on that Lincoln did. But I must tell you: That car didn’t move an inch forward and neither will the U.S. economy. This truth is going to surface early in the New Year when even investors finally see it. When that happens, there will be a rush to the doors. Make sure you beat that calamity and sell any stocks you own as soon as you can. Keep some gold as insurance and put cash into three-month T-bills or physical cash in a secure place like a good home safe or a bank safety deposit box.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

The Repudiation Of Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney’s defeat may mark the neoconservatives’ last chance to win the U.S. Presidency. The re-election of Barack Obama, arguably one of the worst Presidents in decades, underscores how bad a candidate the GOP nominee was. The way in which conservatives have disavowed Romney in the past couple of weeks highlights the scorn for him and the neocon policies he wanted to implement in a world rife with war.

Perhaps Romney’s candidacy was doomed all along. What we are left to do in the next four years will be a test of America’s global influence.

Obama needs to avert a war and perhaps even a social uprising within the Nation’s boundaries. And in four years, the Republican Party needs to nominate a leader that will revitalize the United States.

As Conservatives, We Must Find Our Roots

Romney was big on what he was going to do his first day in the Oval Office had he been elected President. It would have turned out to be a very long day, because the Nation has a long list of things that must be done. And as bad as Obama has been, America decided that Romney was not the one to revive the Nation.

On Aug. 28, 2010, during Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally at the Lincoln Memorial, Sarah Palin addressed the crowd. She spoke out against Obama’s expressed desire to be a “transformational” President.

“I must assume that you too know that we must not fundamentally transform America as some would want. We must restore America and restore her honor,” Palin said.

In New York Times bestseller Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, Conservative Patrick J. Buchanan writes of Palin’s message: “It is a contention of this book that America has been changed in our lifetimes, that a revolution has taken place, that though we appear to the world as the same country, we are a different nation on a course far off the one our fathers set.”

Buchanan’s book was written before Romney won the GOP nomination. Yet he speaks out against the very policies of U.S. imperialism that Romney embraced. Most important, warns Buchanan, is that America is further down the road to bankruptcy because of an ongoing expansionism that persists in Washington despite the cold truth that the Cold War is over. The Federal government has spent $1 trillion over the past dozen years in two wars. Yet instead of winning over enemies, we have created more of them.

Buchanan compares the United States to another superpower that imploded two decades ago: the Soviet Union. In his introduction he lays out his comparison:

“Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?” was the title of a 1970 essay by Russian dissident Andrei Amalrik. Forced into exile, Amalrik died in a car crash in Spain in 1980. Few had taken him seriously. Yet, nine years after his death, the Soviet Empire had collapsed and the Soviet Union disintegrated.

What has this to do with us? More than we might imagine.

As did the Soviet Union, America commands an empire of allies, bases, and troops. America, too, is engaged in a seemingly endless war in Afghanistan. America, too, is an ideological nation. America, too, is a land of many races, tribes, cultures, creeds and languages. America, too, has reached imperial overstretch.

These are not the words of an anti-war liberal. They come from a staunch conservative. When words like these are not the rhetoric of the likes of Senator John Kerry, D-Mass, they are difficult to ignore.

Yet that is precisely what Romney was advocating: American involvement in Syria and other nations in the Mideast. It is getting harder and harder for America to be the world’s beat cop, especially with debts of $16 trillion. We are in effect borrowing money (by selling Treasury debts) from China to protect Taiwan from China, borrowing money from Japan to protect South Korea from North Korea and borrowing money from Russia to protect European nations from Russia.

Still, Romney announced that he planned to spend more to extend the global reach of America’s military, which is, by any estimation, huge. Defense spending took up $711 billion of the annual budget in 2011, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. In fact, the United States “spent more on defense in 2011 than did the countries with the next 13 highest defense budgets combined.” Yet Romney wanted to add $2 trillion to the Pentagon budget over the next decade.

Many Republicans were not partial to Romney and his geopolitical ambitions. Romney should have brushed up on history. Fredrick the Great said: “He who defends everything defends nothing.”

This has been proven true for every empire from the Romans to the Soviet Union.

That Obama was able to defeat Romney underscores the problems within the Republican Party. Conservatives must repudiate not only Romney but also the neoconservatives in the GOP. President George W. Bush and the neocons in his inner sanctum cultivated America’s strategy in the Mideast and lead us nowhere but closer to a global war.

We have seen a decade-long abandonment of foreign policies of containment put down by Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Those were sound policies. The Republican Party and the United States must return to that strategy. We can only hope that four years from now won’t be too late and that we will have a better candidate than Romney. Otherwise, another Clinton may be President.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

First Obamacare, Now Obamagreen

Over the next four years, President Barack Obama will try to implement more sweeping changes in America, this time under the pretense of saving the Earth.

In 2009, the President slammed Obamacare down America’s throat. In 2013, it will be Obamagreen — with all the pitfalls of higher taxation, a repressed economy and greater power in the hands of Washington.

This is what the President himself said the evening of his victory:

But despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America’s future. We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers. A country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation, with all the good jobs and new businesses that follow.

We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet [emphasis added].

It seems the President has determined that America and the world must face the immediate and paralyzing shock from manmade global warming. During his second term, the President will take expensive steps to remedy the problem.

Superstorm Sandy was a perfect storm for Obama. Its occurrence stripped the momentum of the Romney campaign; it also gave the President and New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie (aka Brutus) a chance to pal around as if they were lifelong friends as they walked among the destruction across the Governor’s home state.

“I cannot thank the President enough for his personal concern and compassion for our state and for the people of our state,” Christie said.

Perhaps Christie saw the writing on the wall and wanted to swing over to the winning side, the Green side. Perhaps the influence of the Green Environmental Machine has begun to influence even good Republicans. The only thing that seems certain is that the environmental movement is almost a religion with its own mantras and even high priests like Al Gore and Obama.

Robert Nisbet, one of the 20th century’s great conservative minds, wrote:

“It is entirely possible that when the history of the twentieth century is finally written, the single most important social movement of the period will be judged to be environmentalism. …  Environmentalism is now well on its way to becoming the third great wave of redemptive struggle in Western history, the first being Christianity, the second modern socialism.”

The President is part of this wave. He launched his re-election campaign in December 2011 by announcing $4 billion in energy conserving upgrades to Federal buildings throughout the country and finalizing efforts to create an ecosystem task force.

Obama has also mandated the first fuel and emissions standards for commercial vehicles and is applying those rules to vehicles built between 2014 and 2018.

The President has also committed $21 billion in taxpayer money to solar and wind energy companies. One of those companies was Solyndra, which received more than $500 million in Federal money only to default on it.

According to Canada’s CTV News, Obama’s re-election has made climate change a “hot topic” in Washington and may lead to a new carbon tax. A carbon tax would force people to pay more for using fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, which the Greens claim is producing heat-trapping carbon dioxide and creating storms like Sandy.

As blogged on Washingtonpost.com, Sandy has put global warming back into focus for millions of Americans as well as Congress.

Global warming was also a type of wicked problem that led to gridlock and dissension in the nation’s capital, as nobody could quite formulate the link between public policy and extreme weather events.

That is, until Sandy. After being a non-factor until the last week of the presidential campaign, suddenly people want to talk about global warming.

The Post compares global warming as a crisis as great as the Federal government’s “fiscal cliff.” Really?

First, global warming — if it even exists and if it is truly manmade — is a global problem (I have more to say shortly).

Second, the fiscal crisis is all American, and it is a problem created by two Presidents and 12 years of Congress members who were negligent and would probably be found legally culpable if they were working in the private sector.

We know the Federal government is headed for bankruptcy. Social programs are grievously underfunded, defense spending is out of control and, most likely, tax revenues are going to decline. (Higher tax rates won’t mean more money to Washington; they will mean less money because the economy is most likely to implode.) But we don’t know that global warming is a certainty.

The same day The Post published its article, The Wall Street Journal ran a column signed by 16 scientists of note titled “No Need to Panic about Global Warming.”

This is part of what scientists signed off on in the column:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

I got my first writing job three decades ago. All these years later, I am not sure if my publisher was teasing the day I started when he said: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” The Greens have made that an axiom. Every time there is a hurricane or a superstorm like Sandy, they jump up on the highest soapbox and yell: “Global warming!”

If Obama bases new tax and energy policies on Sandy, that storm may be destructive for many years after the rains and wind ceased and power was restored.

There is one more inconvenient truth that the Greens I talk to can’t answer, even if I give them two contingencies that they can’t prove (that there is global warming and that it is manmade): How is the United States going to change this?

According to GrabStats, there are more than 2,000 coal plants in China and one new plant goes into operation every four to seven days.

In 2008, Wired Science reported that if China’s carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country’s carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030. That will equal the entire world’s carbon dioxide production.

This has implications for the United States because what it means is that if Obama pursues Obamagreen the way he did Obamacare, then it will simply be a continuation of making the United States less competitive.

If Obama wins and gets his way with Green energy, do you know what is going to happen? The United States will develop state-of-the-art technologies that still won’t be as competitive as fossil fuels. Then we will sell the blueprints of those technologies to the Chinese, who will manufacture and sell them back to us, using coal to power the factories that produce these products. There is logic in that.

I don’t understand Obama. He either doesn’t follow this logic because he isn’t very smart or, more likely, he does understand it thoroughly but is still giving the green light to Green energy without regard to the cost and competitive consequences to the Nation which he has sworn to protect.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Sour Grapes Or Grapes Of Wrath?

The day after the re-election of President Barack Obama, the stock market tanked with the Dow Jones industrial average falling more than 300 points in the first two hours of trading and closing the day below 13,000 for the first time since Aug. 2. Oil prices also fell, losing almost $4 per barrel to less than $85 per barrel. Prices of every asset other than gold (which rose by $5 per ounce) also declined when the markets woke up to Obama’s second term. It is called deflation, and it is only going to get worse.

The markets are pure. They don’t have prejudices or preferences other than to make money in bull markets and retain money in bear markets. The day after the election, the markets voted — or, more to the point, stampeded — in a massive sale that saw every single stock in the Dow fall sharply in the first couple of hours of trading.

Democrats were quick to point out how the Dow almost doubled during Obama’s first term. The reason for that was an unprecedented amount of money injected into the capital markets and the policies of the Federal Reserve, which has effectively lowered interest rates to less than zero (yield on short-term Treasury bills pays less than the rate of inflation).

I expect more funds moving into Treasury bills despite their paltry rates of return. Investors, especially large mutual funds and even sovereign nations, are more worried about a return of their capital than the return on their capital.

For four years and with the Federal government now holding $16 trillion in debts, Obama has been playing for time with spending sprees that the Roman Emperor Nero could not have imagined.

In comparison to Obama, this information on Nero is interesting:

On July 18, 64 A.D. disaster struck, Rome was ravaged by a great fire that burned over three fourths of the city. Amid this disaster however Nero saw the opportunity to rebuild Rome greater than it had been before. His first task was the construction of a huge elegant palace. Some people believed that Nero started the fire so that he would have a place for his palace to be built. Nero saw himself losing favor with the public so he decided to blame the fire on the Christians.

Substitute Republicans for Christians and Obama’s insistence on blaming them for all of America’s ills, and you can see the parallel.

Yet while Nero’s taxes rebuilt Rome (until it was overrun by barbarians), the upcoming taxes from Obama — set to kick in Jan. 1 — will dismantle today’s modern empire, the United States.

There is growing pessimism over the prospects of Congress finding any common ground in order to stop a string of tax hikes and spending cuts from taking effect at the end of the year. Investors worry the so-called fiscal cliff scenario would send the economy back into a deep recession.

I don’t think that is going to happen. I believe the pyramid of money created during Obama’s first term plus the onslaught of taxes (his redistribution of wealth) and finally his insistence on green energy that is neither affordable nor practical are going to precipitate another depression.

Renowned 20th Century economist John Kenneth Galbraith warned that economic meltdowns inevitably reoccur after the collective living memory of the society has forgotten the errors of greed and avarice that lead to every panic and crash. It has been 80 years since the last financial implosion. The people who are directing the wealth of the Nation see the Great Depression just as they see the Roman Empire — something that had to be studied in order to pass history.

Even worse is the likelihood that Obama will victimize the United States because of his own personal ambitions and successes that have translated into giving him the Presidency for another four years. The difference between being a bad President, like Jimmy Carter, and a disastrous President will come down to those additional 48 months.

In the bestseller Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, Patrick J. Buchanan writes:

Obama is caught is a dilemma from which there appears no escape. Democrats are the Party of Government. They feed it and it feeds them. The larger government becomes, the more agencies established, the more bureaucrats hired, the more citizens receiving benefits or checks, the more deeply entrench the Party of Government.

For 80 years, this has been the Democratic formula for success. “Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect,” was the pithy depiction of that policy attributed to FDR aide Harry Hopkins. And herein lies Obama’s dilemma. How does the leader of the Party of Government preside over an era of austerity, in which federal employees and federal benefits are radically reduced, to avert a default on the national debt?

The answer is Obama cannot do this. More to the point, he won’t even try. We have plenty of evidence of that from his first term which was terrible for the middle class that the President says he so strongly supports. The real winner is the government itself.

USA Today reported:

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

The United States used to be the economic dynamo that powered the world. Over the past decade, America could not even power itself. More and more, we rely on borrowing ever greater sums from nations like China and Germany. Yet the strength for those two economic powers is also in decline. Last week, Bloomberg reported that the European Commission is predicting the eurozone economy will virtually grind to a halt next year as the debt crisis ravages southern Europe and gnaws at the economic performance of export-driven Germany.

The commission estimates that “the 17-nation euro economy will expand 0.1 percent in 2013, down from a May forecast of 1 percent. It cut the estimate for Germany, Europe’s largest economy, to 0.8 percent from 1.7 percent.” Meanwhile, China, whose economy has grown at double-digit rates for the past 25 years, has seen economic growth slow to just more than 7 percent.

This plus non-existent job growth in the United States, the onset of higher taxes, soaring debts and a severely devalued dollar tell me that the Obama Depression is fait accompli.

In high school, I had to read The Grapes of Wrath, a novel by John Steinbeck. I found it depressing, but I was affected more when I reread it a decade ago. Steinbeck’s plot could play out today. With the re-election of Obama, I believe it will play out over the next few years.

Action to take: Sell all stocks and bonds, including resource stocks such as petroleum and coal. (I wouldn’t be surprised to see oil below $60 per barrel in the next 18 months and the Dow at less than 8,000.) Convert small amounts of money into cold, hard cash stored in a safe place. I wouldn’t trust large amounts of money to banks, so consider putting anything over $10,000 into three- or six-month Treasury bills. You won’t make money, but you won’t lose your principal. Keep some physical gold on hand if you can afford it. I think bullion might retreat over the short-term, but some gold tucked away is always an insurance policy. If things get extremely bad, only gold prices will rise. As for silver and platinum, I would be an outright seller of both.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Obama Wins: Ouch!

The re-election of President Barack Obama reminds me of the joke my friend tells about me because I have a hard time giving up on things.

“Myers is the kind of guy who goes to the fridge, opens the door, takes out the milk, takes a swig and says: ‘Still sour!’  Then, he dutifully puts the milk back in the fridge.”

My fellow Americans, Obama is “still sour.” The Nation’s future rests upon the hope that his leadership will somehow get better if we can chill over this result of this election.

That is not much consolation except to say maybe we were doomed before this election. Also, what we do now and over the coming months will be a test for American democracy — the longest lived one in the world.

In fact, Founding Father John Adams did not believe it could survive. Adams wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

And few democracies have been on the edge of a precipice and not fallen from it.

The danger lurks with so many factors that no President could overcome, at least not in time to avert an economic disaster and perhaps even a social uprising. Most of it comes down to the change in the moral compass and the destruction of American values.

White Men Can’t Run?

I watched Larry King interview acclaimed writer and reporter Bob Woodward on the day after Obama’s inauguration. King told a mystified Woodward: “My younger son Cannon, he is eight. And he now says that he would like to be black. I’m not kidding. He said there’s a lot of advantages. Black is in. Is this a turning of the tide?”

I don’t know what is more amazing: that the 78-year-old King now has a preteen son or that his son wanted to be a black instead of a white Jew.

Perhaps it’s not so strange at all. Robert Groves, the head of the U.S. Census Bureau, said regarding the 2010 census data: “This is the decade of Tiger Woods and Barack Obama, where we talked about race combinations.”

Race, ethnic and economic issues are certainly becoming a major hurdle for both the United States and Canada. In 2009, columnist Frank Rich wrote in The New York Times:

“…the inexorable transformation of America into a white-minority country in some 30 years — by 2042 in the latest Census Bureau estimate — is causing serious jitters, if not panic, in some white establishments. … we’re just at the start of what may be a 30-year struggle.”

The problem is that the races are not all coming together as they once did in a giant melting pot. Rather, America is turning into a monstrous salad bowl whose mixed cultural heritage differs on morality and government, a mixture that may not be easy for anyone to digest in the not distant future.

It certainly has happened in Canada and my hometown city of Calgary, Alberta. When I left and moved to Spokane, Wash., to raise my family 30 years ago, Calgary was a white, Anglo-American city built around energy. Energy still powers this city, but its population has more than doubled in three decades. Much of the growth has come from immigration of peoples from the developing world. The common Christian values that the people of Calgary once shared no longer exist. The city is a mishmash of cultures, colors and mores. Adding to the societal stress is the infiltration of street drugs as well as Asian gangs that pedal them.

To deal with the problem, Calgary elected Mayor Naheed Kurban Nenshi. He was born in Canada after his parents emigrated from Tanzania. A smart and likable man elected in 2010, he promised to ease the social tensions in Calgary and bring spending under control. So far, he has had limited success.

I saw similar changes in Spokane. I first visited The Lilac City in 1977. After hosting Expo ‘74, Spokane rebuilt its core with a beautiful park.

People didn’t think to lock their doors at night. Then, there was the case of Kevin Coe, better known as the South Hill rapist. In 1981, he was arrested for and convicted of a series of rapes. A decade later hard drug distribution was so rampant that police warned drivers to be extra cautious driving because some dealers were carrying meth labs in the trunks of their vehicles.

I turn 55 next week; and, over 30 years, I have seen a severe decline in the morals that made both Canada and America great nations. If unchecked, things will get worse, so bad that I fear there will be violence.

The forces facing Obama are gigantic compared to that of any one mayor. Obama’s ability or inability to deal with social and economic problems impacts the Nation and the world. To date, he has not shown much capacity to lead, but now more than at any time in the past half-century, America needs strong leadership.

So far, Obama has done nothing but incite alarm for millions of Americans.

The New York Times bestseller Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive To 2025? was written by Patrick J. Buchanan, a strong conservative who was a member of the Richard Nixon Administration. Buchanan opens the second chapter, “The Death Of Christian America,” with these three quotes:

  • “America was born a Christian nation.” -Woodrow Wilson
  • “This is a Christian nation.” -Harry Truman, 1947
  • “… we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation…” -Barack Obama, 2009

The question that stands out to this writer is whether Obama is being a shrewd politician and tapping into that rainbow of voters or does he not think that Christian values and mores are important to the future of the United States? We have four more years to find out. Meanwhile, now is as good a time as any to be taking precautionary steps to secure the future of you and your family.

Yours in good times and bad,

-John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

California Dreamin’

“You know the preacher likes the cold
He knows I’m gonna stay
California Dreamin’
On such a winter’s day”
–“California Dreamin’” by The Mamas & The Papas

California! Home to the gold rush, Hollywood and, once upon a time, the greatest of all American dreams. But as Don DeLillo, the great modern American novelist said: “Californians invented the concept of life-style. This alone warrants their doom.”

I wrote last week about the economic tragedy that has befallen Greece. But the economic crisis is far closer to home than that island nation. For America it may start and end in California.

In the book California Crackup, authors Joe Mathews and Mark Paul explain the economic meltdown for California — whose State coffers may be just as empty as those in Athens, Greece — has legislative districts filled with very partisan people. Every new tax or big spending decision requires a two-thirds majority. Even if a measure finds the needed votes, it can be undone by the voter-initiative process.

Bestselling author Michael Lewis (The Big Short) wrote: “Throw in term limits—no elected official now serves in California government long enough to fully understand it—and you have a recipe for generating maximum contempt for elected officials.”

The California government was designed mainly to maximize the likelihood that voters will despise the people they elect, according to Paul.

“What all the polls show is that people want services and not to pay for them. And that’s exactly what they have now got,” Paul said.

It sounds like what’s going on now in Congress. I find it hard to imagine that either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will be effective in instituting change.

For Arnold Schwarzenegger, two-term Governor of California, it was a series of economic crises that began with the Internet bubble and ended with the real estate bubble.

In his new autobiography, Total Recall, Schwarzenegger wrote: “Besides being golden and prosperous, California is disaster prone.” He didn’t understand the full extent of this until 2003 when he was elected as a Republican Governor.

“After so many years of ugly, pointless fighting in Sacramento, both sides had lost touch with the art of negotiation. In fact, the legislative districts were drawn to elect the most partisan, uncompromising members of each party; legislators who were bred to fight, like roosters bred for cockfighting.”

It has led to economic failure in what was the land of opportunity.

CNBC reports: “California is on the verge of an economic meltdown. The state, with the second highest foreclosure rate in the nation, is being hammered by the deep recession, rising unemployment and a growing multi-billion dollar budget deficit. … And, while California may be the biggest state in trouble, it isn’t alone.”

How bad is it? I was out at a gathering with all my oldest friends last week. One of them owns the largest motorcycle dealership in California. He has a son and is very worried about his future because of recent events in the State. Yet he said he didn’t know where to go where they would be better off.

That was when I decided to follow up my Greek article and write about California. Only after I did my research did I find that GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney had already made the comparison.

Speaking in Iowa in August, Romney compared California’s economy to Greece’s economic crisis.

“Entrepreneurs and business people around the world and here at home think that at some point America is going to become like Greece or like Spain or Italy, or like California.”

Romney also derided California at a fundraiser in Irvine, Calif., earlier this summer when he warned that the ills of that State could spread to the rest of the Nation.

“How have the liberals done in California? Do you want the same policies in Washington that you see coming out of Sacramento? With education, with the deficit, with taxes? Is that the way you want the country to go? I don’t know how anybody in California can keep voting for liberals,” Romney said.

One thing is certain, California is becoming a disaster zone and not because of earthquakes or forest fires. Last month, the Debord Report stated:

The independent State Budget Crisis Tax Force has released its analysis of California’s finances and found that rather than being a whopping $28 billion in debt, as Gov. Jerry Brown alleged with he came to office, the state is actually a nearly unfathomable $335 billion debt. Brown called it a “wall,” as the New York Times noted. But it’s really more like a dozen walls. All stacked on top of each other to make a mega-wall that blocks out the Sun.

This is not an exaggeration. Californian’s total level of debt, on and off the books, is pushing a fifth of the total annual economic output of the state, which is about $2 trillion.

The United States, along with Canada and most Western democracies, has adopted California’s propensity for spending just as it has embraced Hollywood entertainment and La Jolla fashions.

California is the land of illusion. Illusions of prosperity have been adopted worldwide. For his latest bestseller, Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World, Lewis interviewed the mayor of San Jose, Chuck Reed.

Lewis pointed to the fact that San Jose has the second highest per capita income of any city in the United States (after New York) and had one of the highest credit ratings until last March (that was when Moody’s Investors Service cut the general-obligation grade one step to AA1 from AAA).

Reed told Lewis that the city has a problem: It owes so much more money than it can afford to pay to its employees that it could cut its debt in half and still end up broke.

Reed said: “We’re not as bad as Greece, I don’t think.”

Maybe not yet, but for how long? And for how long will the United States be not as bad as Greece? If Washington could not write blank checks because the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, there would be more serious downgrades to U.S. Treasury debt and that would incur much higher interest rates.

For four years, the Obama Administration has refused to do anything but pass the buck — in this case, to future generations. With a little luck we will at least have the opportunity to see if President Romney has the courage to do more. If not, “California Dreamin’” will become America’s nightmare, and many of us will be stepping into churches to pray.

Yours in good times and bad,

John Myers
Editor, Myers Energy & Gold Report

Our Greek Tragedy

Regardless of who the President is after this close election, the equity markets and the U.S. economy are in trouble. Debt has spread throughout the Western world. The fallout is political dissonance, growing economic hardship and, in some places, mob violence.

Ground zero for the spreading fear and panic is Greece, which was once the world’s greatest civilization and the birthplace of democracy, poetry and philosophy.

There is violent evidence of the contradiction from what the ancients taught and what is unraveling in Greece. It would all just be another boring story at the end of the news day, except there is brewing tragedy that Homer would find worthy of telling: The greatest Nation on Earth, the United States, may be a few short years or months from the economic debt collapse that wreaked havoc from Athens, Greece, to Akron, Ohio.

The onset of the crises began in 2008 after there was a worldwide flood of cheap money that investment bankers leveraged. In eight years, worldwide private and public debts rose from $84 trillion to $195 trillion. To put that number into perspective, the gross domestic product in the United States (the value of all goods and services sold or rendered) will be well below $16 trillion this year, while the total market capitalization of every U.S. stock that is publicly traded is less than $25 trillion.

According to Kyle Bass, the manager of the hedge fund Hayman Capital and one of the few to correctly predict the stock market crash of 2008: “It has been the largest peacetime accumulation of debt in history.”

It was a decade long drunkfest, and the tab is due. With the too-big-to-fail banks already bailed out, the bill for the biggest party ever has fallen on Western governments. To sustain any hope of borrowing another nickel, these democracies have had to make unprecedented spending cuts.

No nation went on a bigger bender than Greece over the past decade. The spending spree happened after Greece was accepted into the European Union. The promises that Greece made to achieve that status were never kept. Now, Germany is faced with the lose/lose prospect of bailing out what German newspaper headlines describe as “Lazy Greeks” or accepting the consequences along with the rest of Europe (and most likely America) if the Greek government defaults on its $400 billion in government debt.

The situation is bleak. Last year, of the 126 countries whose debt was rated, Greece ranked 126th. The acrimony that resulted from deep cuts in government spending just to stave off insolvency has led to political demonstrations, violent protests and murder.

Sowing The Seeds Of Violence

In Greece this autumn, more violence is being harvested. Last month, the nation’s two largest unions went on strike. The strike turned violent after protesters hurled firebombs at police in Athens. As many as 50,000 Greeks gathered to condemn new austerity measures. Still, Greece’s new government rolled forward with $15 billion in further spending cuts that have been imposed on the nation by its creditors, the most notable being Germany.

In May 2010, there were demonstrations that drew tens of thousands of people near the central square in front of Parliament in Athens as part of a general strike that paralyzed airlines, ferries, schools and hospitals.

When some protesters saw 20 employees still working at Marfin Egnatia Bank, they began throwing Molotov cocktails inside the building and then added gasoline to the fire. Most of the bank employees escaped through the roof with the help of the fire department, but the fire killed three workers — including a young woman who was three weeks pregnant. As the bodies were being removed, the crowd screamed that it served them right for going to work. The police stood by, and no arrests were made.

It sounds like a scene from the French Revolution, but it is going on in Greece even as you read this. And while one government has already been toppled, the new one is indecisive. It wants to get a free ride from the Germans and keep lending costs at least somewhat affordable by staying with the euro. However, millions of Greeks are unwilling to live within their means, which would include paying taxes and postponing a retirement age with pensions beginning at age 55 for men and 50 for women.

In his bestseller Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World, Michael Lewis wrote:

As anyone with a brain must have known, the Greeks would be able to disguise their true financial state for only as long as (a) lenders assumed that a loan to Greece was as good as guaranteed by the European Union (read Germany), and (b) no one outside of Greece paid very much attention.  Inside Greece there was no market for whistle-blowing, as basically everyone was in on the racket.

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Treasury

On Aug. 5, 2011, for the first time in history, a credit service (Standard & Poor’s) downgraded U.S. federal government debt from AAA (outstanding) to AA+ (excellent).

In normal times this would cause U.S. interest rates to increase, making it even more expensive for the Nation to finance its daily borrowing requirements. Instead, the crisis that was brought about because of Congress’ opposition to an increase in the debt ceiling actually made government rates fall. A few days later, rates paid on 10-year Treasury bonds dropped to just above 2 percent, the lowest return ever.

It was part and parcel of the investment insanity that is controlling the bond market. Stocks are a different matter. After the downgrade, stock markets around the world underwent a serious correction, which sent investors flocking to safety. That sent billions of dollars into gold (which made sense) and U.S. Treasuries (which made no sense).

All of this was accomplished, of course, because the U.S. dollar is the reserve currency of the world. Because of that, it is free to manufacture as many dollars as it needs to pay off its creditors. As a result, the fear that the United States will someday default is still not considered, according to Lewis.

The stock market crash of 2008 demonstrated investor thinking can change on a dime. That is America’s problem for anyone who holds U.S. stocks or bonds.

Twelve years ago this month, I began writing Outstanding Investments for Agora. That fledgling newsletter, which is the company’s flagship publication, has stayed on course with my original recommendations: that investors should buy gold and other hard assets because the United States was drowning in debt. Since that time, the price of gold has risen from well below $300 per ounce and is currently trading above $1,700 per ounce. Even more telling may be what the greenback has done versus the Canadian dollar. A decade ago, you needed 1.5 Canadian dollars to buy one U.S. dollar. Today, 97 cents of Canadian money will buy you a greenback.

The fact that U.S. interest rates have fallen to all-time lows is an anomaly that historians will look back at with wonder. They will ask themselves why someone with a brain didn’t see it coming.

Meanwhile, if there were an anger index for the United States, it would be at an all-time high. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are campaigning hard these last few weeks for the Presidency, yet neither has laid America’s true cards on the table. Neither wants to precipitate a stock and bond market collapse. Yet it is out there… waiting.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy and Gold Report

Our Hundred Years’ War

The race for the Presidency has been interesting, not because of what either GOP nominee Mitt Romney or President Barack Obama has said, but because of what has been ignored.

The most notable taboo topic is the Nation’s continued involvement in Afghanistan as well as the progressive deterioration of American strategic goals for the Mideast.

Neither candidate has been candid on a geopolitical blunder in Afghanistan that continues to rack up hundreds of billions of dollars in additional debt and potentially thousands of American deaths.

Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer, contends that neither candidate has a way for America to extricate itself from Afghanistan.

In an interview, Bennis said:

Candidate Obama has now stopped talking about Afghanistan this time around. Candidate Romney has said that Obama is not tough enough, but what he has called for has not been different in any substantive way. He has said that we should keep troops there, not pull out right away. President Obama is not pulling out right away, so there’s very little substantive difference.

What is inescapable is that this month marks the beginning of the 12th year of war in Afghanistan; it is America’s longest war. What has been ignored by American strategists is that Afghanistan is a desolate, Stone Age nation that refuses to be civilized and has successfully resisted past and present superpowers, a group that includes not only the United States but also the British Empire and the Soviet Union.

Washington has ignored this historical truth and has so far invested nearly $1 trillion in fighting a losing struggle that has cost us more than 2,000 dead.

Obama has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan by December 2014, although the United States has pledged to continue some undefined military and economic support well beyond that date. How far the United States will offer support beyond that date is open to speculation. Given the growing conflict with millions of radical followers of Islam, it doesn’t seem impossible that right now America has a future President who is in college and who, decades from now, will be deciding his strategies to defend America from an ever-expanding Muslim mob.

Afghan war strategists in the Obama Administration agree there is little chance of negotiations with the Taliban that would bring a political settlement to the war.

The question is why would the Taliban want to negotiate with the United States? Some 12 years into this war, American soldiers on patrol can’t determine who the biggest threat is: the enemy fighters in the countryside or their Afghan allies who once protected their backs but have increasingly been taking aim at them.

Gareth Porter, a historian and investigative journalist on U.S. foreign and military policy, said: “The Taliban have been able to carry out spectacular attacks on U.S. bases that have gotten much farther and done much more damage than anything the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were ever able to do during the Vietnam War.”

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen admitted the killings of almost 50 allied troops this year by Afghan security forces has damaged the relationship between the international forces and the Afghan police and military.

The Much Bigger War

Unspoken by both Presidential candidates is how America can win the war far beyond Afghanistan, a war without borders against an elusive enemies with unspecific goals united only in their hatred of the United States.

“The enemies we face in the future will look a lot like al Qaeda: transnational, globalized, locally franchised, extensively outsourced–but tied together through a powerful identity that leaps frontiers and continents,” wrote Mark Steyn in America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.

“All dominant powers are hated–Britain was, and Rome–but they’re usually hated for the right reasons. America is hated for every reason. The fanatical Muslims despise America because it’s all lap-dancing and gay porn; the secular Europeans despise America because it’s all born-again Christians hung up on abortion; the anti-Semites despise America because it’s controlled by Jews. Too Jewish, too Christian, too godless, America is George Orwell’s Room 101: whatever your bugbear you will find it therein; whatever you’re against, America is the prime example of it.”

We no longer face a monolithic enemy like communism. What we do face is an enemy that will persist in its extremism and its hatred of the United States long after the upcoming occupant leaves the Oval Office.

And yet our policymakers continue to be like old generals and persist with fighting the last war. That war was won by outspending the enemy. Eventually, the Soviet Union imploded because that empire simply could not afford the cost of the Cold War. Today, America’s strategists are spending even more money on everything from nuclear aircraft battle groups to ultra-sophisticated fighter-interceptors like the Raptor F-22 which costs $420 million per plane.

Expenditures on these types of weapons put the Pentagon’s budget at $670 billion this year, about 18 percent of total Federal spending. The dollar amount has more than doubled since 2001 when the United States began its wars against Islamic extremists. It is hard for me to see how jet inceptors or nuclear submarines can effectively combat the growing radical contingent within Islam which continues on its jihad.

From Yemen to Libya, revolt rolls forward. Not long ago, nations like Egypt were our vanguards, influencing at least some stability on the region. In the past three years, one regime after another has been toppled, and there is growing radicalization inside the governments of almost each of these former allies. That could, as Steyn suggests, leave America alone.

When I was a kid, there was a joke about the IQ test for dummies. One of the questions was: Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb? Another was: How long did the Hundred Years’ War last? This second question isn’t so easy because it turned out to be a series of conflicts between England and France that lasted from 1337 to 1453.

That is trivia. But there is another question we should all be asking: How long will America’s war with Islam last? Tragically, we are into the second decade of this conflict and there is no end in sight.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

On A Rig And A Prayer

Let us hope Mitt Romney is uncorking non-alcoholic champagne in 34 days. If Romney is victorious, the caps being blown won’t only be on bottles from Romney’s stock. Across the land, there will be celebrations as hundreds of rigs get set to drill and capture oil inside the United States and along the Nation’s coastlines. Included in the festivities are new jobs created by Keystone Pipeline.

The GOP Presidential candidate has gone so far as to promise North American energy independence in the next eight years. If this sounds like déjà vu, you are right. American Presidents have been raising their glasses to the promise of American energy independence since President Richard Nixon proposed it four decades ago.

1347540607874

Brian Beutler demonstrated this in the graph above published by TPM.com on Sept. 11. The numbers, taken from the Energy Information Administration, show petroleum imports as a percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. Headlined are the years that three Presidents promised American energy independence.

President Barack Obama also has plans to reduce America’s oil imports, but his solution is mostly meant to please his liberal constituency and is centered on greater investment in unproven, unreliable and uneconomical green energy.

Romney is more realistic than past Presidents because he is calling for North American energy independence, which would allow Canada — yes, with its gummy oil sands — to move American transport, heat America’s homes and malls, and power its factories. The moose and ducks in northern Alberta may not like the off-world landscape that the oil sands leave behind, but I have a feeling that North Americans will find it a lifesaver.

What has led to U.S. oil dependence on OPEC has been half a century of restrictive drilling inside the United States, plus a growing mountain of green legislation that threatens to block pipeline imports from Canada. America has become more involved in one crisis after another in the Islamic world — home to two-thirds of the world’s conventional oil reserves.

Romney stands head and shoulders over Obama when it comes to energy. Last week, Romney pushed for energy independence at a rally in Jefferson County, Colo.

Romney said: “We have kind of an ace in the hole that came along to us because someone learned how to drill into the earth, not just vertically but horizontally. I will double licenses and permits, and I’ll make sure we’ll drill in the outer continental shelf and drill in Alaska and bring in that pipeline from Canada.”

On Sept. 25, on the campaign trail in Ohio, an outspoken Romney condemned Obama’s plan to invest in green companies: “He spent $90 billion and sent them to companies in many cases that were owned by campaign contributors of his.”

Romney’s emphasis on the drill bit over the windmill is certainly right-minded, but that has not stopped a storm of criticism by wind-power advocates who oppose Romney because he wants to do away with the Federal tax credit extension for wind power.

While Romney is accused of saying what is needed to win, Obama is worse. The President has gone so far as to obstruct petroleum exploration.

“There is an entire new world of geology out there that’s awaiting us,” said Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources Inc., at a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee hearing last month.

According to Hamm, Federal regulations hinder development by delaying the permits needed. As a result, his Oklahoma City-based company avoids drilling on Federal lands. Hamm added that he wasn’t representing the campaign in his testimony.

Bloomberg recently reported that oil production climbed to almost 6.2 million barrels a day this year (from less than 5 million barrels in 2008), helping reduce imports to 42 percent of total consumption from more than 60 percent in 2005.

Through fracking, a process that injects a mixture of water, sand and chemicals thousands of feet below the surface, companies like Continental can access fossil fuels trapped in shale rock formations, whereas conventional techniques require the oil to flow to the well, according to Hamm.

Noble Causes

Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) rebutted that the Republicans’ energy plans are too reliant on fossil fuels which release gases that scientists have linked to climate change.

That should read “some scientists.” The key point is that even if there is global warming (and no one is certain that there is), it is manmade.

One person who wonders about all the outrage over global warming is Anthony Watts. A former meteorologist, Watts attended Purdue University. While he doesn’t claim to be a scientist, he certainly questions the science of global warming.

Watts was recently interviewed by PBS Newshour (not a conservative program). The first question: “What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?”

Watts’ answer: “They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society… There’s a term that was used to describe this. It’s called noble cause corruption. And actually I was a victim of that at one time, where you’re so fervent in your belief that you have to do something. You’re saving the planet, you’re making a difference, you’re making things better that you’re so focused on this goal of fixing it or changing it that you kind of forget to look along the path to make sure that you haven’t missed some things.”

What Of China And India?

Watts points out that global warming has become a business in its own right. If so, it is a business that obstructs U.S. energy advantages but has no impact on America’s new competitors: China and India.

In 2006, China became the largest national emitter of carbon dioxide. It was reported this past summer that the average Chinese person’s carbon footprint is now almost equal to the average European’s.

The Guardian reported: “Chinese CO2 emissions are now around 80% higher than those of America. This widening gap reflects a 9% increase in total emissions in China in 2011, driven mainly by rising coal use, compared with a 2% decline in the US.”

What Obama and the Democrats don’t understand is that cleaning up America’s carbon emissions will give nations like China and India an economic advantage at a time when the United States cannot afford it. This is something Romney and the people in charge of his energy policy understand, and it is something Obama and his loyalists are either willfully ignorant of or else understand all too well and simply don’t care.

Romney’s understanding about energy makes him a much better candidate to be the next President of the United States. He will put rigs back to work, and that is enough reason for me to pray for his victory.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

The War With Islam

Around and around we go. Violence and death of innocents on Islamic soil seems to be a perpetual phenomenon. The most recent round of senseless violence was said to have been sparked by the surfacing of a sophomoric YouTube video that pokes fun at Muhammad.

A handful of Muslims in the eastern Libya city of Benghazi became so enraged by the incident that they attacked the U.S. consulate, killing U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens along with three other Americans.

It didn’t bother the executioners that Stevens had fought beside Libyans to free Libya from dictator Moammar Gadhafi, who had ruled the country for 34 years.

Also, protesters in Egypt scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and replaced an American flag with an Islamic banner. Again, Islamic extremists have problems with their short-term memory. It was the United States that supported the revolution in Egypt that removed that nation’s dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

Those acts were the first such assaults on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country. There was a flurry of excuses for the murder of Americans whose only sin was trying to build Islamic civilizations in a region that refuses to become civilized.

Let me get back to that YouTube film whose very existence justifies a death sentence even to those who had nothing to do with its production.

You see, the video goes so far as to mock Islam’s holy prophet.

I don’t know if some of you watch the TV show “Family Guy” which FOX, of all networks, produces. It sometimes makes fun of Jesus Christ. In one episode Christ is shown as a hippie working at a used record store. That hasn’t resulted in attacks on the show’s creator, Seth MacFarlane, by Christians. Call it free speech and the Western world’s ability to laugh at itself even when it comes to our religious beliefs. We certainly don’t go on murderous rampages every time our sensibilities are hurt. That is not the way for much of Islam.

Further evidence of violent Islamic tendencies was provided last week when al-Qaida’s affiliate in North Africa urged Muslims in the region to kill U.S. government representatives.

“We encourage all Muslims to continue to demonstrate and escalate their protests and to kill their (American) ambassadors and representatives or to expel them to cleanse our land from their wickedness,” read the statement from al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

The group also called the killing of Stevens “the best gift you (can) give to his arrogant and unjust administration.”

There’s more. Also last week, a Taliban-allied insurgent group claimed responsibility for a suicide attack that killed at least 12 people, including eight South Africans, in Afghanistan. The group said it was in response to the YouTube video.

A spokesman for Islamic militant group Hizb-i-Islami said a 22-year-old woman named Fatima carried out the attack. She drove a car packed with 660 pounds of explosives into a van on a road leading to the Kabul International Airport.

Suicide attacks by women are rare in Afghanistan — maybe because it’s a sin for a woman to drive a automobiles.

“The anti-Islam film hurt our religious sentiments and we cannot tolerate it,” spokesman Haroon Zarghhon told The Associated Press.  “There had been several young men who wanted to take revenge, but Fatima also volunteered and we wanted to give a chance to a girl … to tell the world we cannot ignore any anti-Islam attack.”

That’s lucky for Fatima — although, I am not too sure what she is going to do with the 72 virgins that are waiting for her.

Radical jihadists can’t even come up with original reasons to be anti-American; they have to spend their days scanning YouTube to find some insult. Don’t these Islamic believers have better things to do, like build schools and roads? Yet it was determined that murder had to be meted out because some idiot made fun of Muhammad.

Isn’t it time for the West to wash our hands of Islam? A growing part of Islam, regardless of whether President Barack Obama will admit it, is at war with the United States and Western society. During the Cold War, the United States faced rational and educated leaders of the Kremlin. The opposition leaders in this war are crazed religious fanatics who have already demonstrated they are crazy enough to blow up themselves — and often many innocent Muslims who happen to be in the way — because they have nothing better to do than to kill Westerners.

You can blame it on the brain trust of Islamic militants. One man that helped shape al-Qaida’s philosophy was Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl.

In an article for The New Yorker, Lawrence Wright relayed Dr. Fadl’s doctrine:

Fadl contends that the rulers of Egypt and other Arab countries are apostates of Islam. “The infidel’s rule, his prayers, and the prayers of those who pray behind him are invalid,” Fadl decrees. “His blood is legal.” He declares that Muslims have a duty to wage jihad against such leaders; those who submit to an infidel ruler are themselves infidels, and doomed to damnation. The same punishment awaits those who participate in democratic elections. “I say to Muslims in all candor that secular, nationalist democracy opposes your religion and your doctrine, and in submitting to it you leave God’s book behind,” he writes. Those who labor in government, the police, and the courts are infidels, as is anyone who works for peaceful change; religious war, not political reform, is the sole mandate. Even devout believers walk a tightrope over the abyss. “A man may enter the faith in many ways, yet be expelled from it by just one deed,” Fadl cautions. Anyone who believes otherwise is a heretic and deserves to be slaughtered.

So here we stand in 2012; the Middle Ages intersect the Internet.

Obama continues to waste billions of dollars in aid to Islamic nations — even countries like strife-riddled Egypt which collects $1.5 billion a year from Washington. The Obama Administration played a crucial role in the overthrow of Mubarak only to witness the ascension to power of the latest Egyptian despots who are even worse than Mubarak. A recent headline from the Daily Beast said it all: “Obama’s Foolish Embrace of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.”

Mr. President: If by chance you get re-elected, please change your policies regarding Islam. Try not to take a society out of the Stone Age. Too many believers in Muhammad (like your father was) are committed to killing those who have done nothing other than invest themselves in trying to bring a better future to a rundown region which is becoming the globe’s gutter.

Hopefully, Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney will prevail in November. If so, he must understand he has an undeclared war on his hands with much of Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood is gaining murderous momentum throughout the Mideast — especially in Egypt. It controls the Suez Canal, a choke point for petroleum and other essential trade.

To date, the Muslim Brotherhood has not renounced the doctrine of its late founder, Hassan al-Banna: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Your Vote Won’t Save The Buck

America will take the biggest wager it has made in generations in just 48 days. Either President Barack Obama or GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney will be given the task of rebuilding America.

Liberals believe Obama is the man who can do it if he is given another four years.

Many Republicans think that another four more years of Obama will ensure the economic destruction of the United States. The GOP is resting its hopes on a Romney Presidency.

I have some bad news: The United States is in a permanent state of decline that neither candidate can, or is even willing to try to, fix.

Obama’s plan comprises the tried and failed policies of big government: renewed regulation and higher taxes. As for Romney, he hasn’t presented much of a plan to reverse the four-year recession that has all the makings of a depression.

Both Obama and Romney are big spenders. Their preference on where they will spend differs, but one fact faces them both: America has $16 trillion in Federal debt.

I believe whatever solutions they have can result only in a larger Federal deficit and the continued meltdown of the dollar.

Whoever is President will have a partner in this crime: the Federal Reserve, whose sole purpose in the 21st century is to float trillions of dollars in fiat money regardless of the future cost.

Kids’ Stuff

When I was in my 20s, I did the research for my father’s investment newsletter. This was a decade before the Internet. The Federal Reserve would send out a monthly newsletter, with all the data on interest rates such as the Fed funds rate, plus all the statistics on the money supply.

What I didn’t know then is that reviewing this material made us like the last of the Mohicans. In the future, the Fed wouldn’t operate with restrictions. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who operated the Fed first for President Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan, believed the excesses of the economy needed to be squeezed out. He promptly did what a responsible central banker should do; he raised interest rates.

In 1975, America was road blocked by gasoline lines and escalating inflation. Volcker decided he had to follow what he believed to be the first fundamental obligation of the Federal Reserve: squeezing out excess money. He certainly did. The Fed increased the fed funds rate, what it charged to other banks to borrow money from 4.6 percent in January 1977 to 19.1 percent in January 1981. That kind of rate change had never been absorbed by the United States, yet Volcker bet it would cure the economic malaise that had been part of the Carter experience and that with Reagan’s tax cuts would put America back to work.

There was a price for this aggressive action taken by the Fed, especially in the farm and commodity sectors, which underwent a rolling recession. Yet because of it and the stability that was returned to the dollar, the U.S. began two decades of unsurpassed growth. It also made America an oasis for foreigners to invest their money.

I remember commenting to my dad in 1982 that I was surprised that M3 money supply (a large measure of the money in the economy) was declining.

He said something about the Fed fixing the excesses of the 1970s. By then, he had told his subscribers to sell gold and to accumulate Treasury notes, some which paid 15 percent interest. He believed the actions of the Fed would strengthen the dollar, and he was right.

Because of the Fed’s intervention, the Nation was saved from dollar maelstrom. Instead, the great economic expansion lay ahead, a period during which the Dow Jones Industrial Average would rise more than tenfold. And the dollar would reach heights never achieved before against other currencies.

This Isn’t Your Father’s Fed 

Since 9/11, the Federal Reserve has rejected any obligation to protect the integrity of the dollar. It has created trillions of dollars out of thin air to fend off the liquidity crisis that began in 2008 and persists to this day.

Congress and the past two Presidents have played a role in making the dollar into Monopoly money. The Troubled Asset Relief Program bank bailout added $700 billion into the coffers of big banks. In the HBO movie “Too Big to Fail,” the question asked at the end is whether the banks can be counted on to lend it. The conclusion by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury is that of course they will.

Yet they didn’t. Like a gambling addict, the big banks have just doubled down on this easy money. And like any gambler, they will lose it, too. It won’t be just their loss but the Nation’s loss while the United States continues to forfeit its superpower status.

In his 2009 book End the Fed, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) writes:

The Fed itself claims that part of its job is to keep inflation in check. This is something like the tobacco industry claiming that it is trying to stop smoking or the automobile industry claiming it is trying to control road congestion. The Fed is in the business of generating inflation… the entire reason for the Fed’s existence is to generate more, not less, of it.

Paul is dead right; in the past decade, the Fed has given Washington a book of checks to accumulate as much debt as it wants. And from what I have seen proposed by Obama and Romney, they plan to spend the Fed’s windfall like a homeless person would spend $1 million in lottery winnings.

In the first day of Economics 101, my professor pulled an apple from his desk (that was no doubt given to him by a suck-up) and asked: “What do you think this apple is worth?”

There was a lot of chattering. People said it was worth maybe a nickel (don’t forget this was in 1976).

Then the professor asked: “What is it worth if I told you that it was the only apple left in the world?”

We were all stupid teenagers, so we missed his point, which was that it would be priceless.

The professor taught us over the next eight months. We came to understand that the value of one apple would be immeasurable.

That is the problem the President-elect faces. Consider it when you look at this graph:

Graph of St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base

 

The amount of U.S. dollars that is sloshing around has doubled in the past four years. America has never seen that kind of monetary eruption. With the exception of Weimar Germany and countries ruled by Latin dictators, neither has any other nation.

This is surely a prescription for the dollar’s destruction. And yet neither Presidential candidate will even mention the impending crisis. That should be all you need to know about getting out of U.S. dollar instruments.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Editor’s note: It’s time to make your submissions for this month’s You Sound Off! feature, which will run Sept. 26. Get your submission in by Sept. 24. It should be no more than 750 words (if it is longer, we probably won’t read it). We will select the one or two we think are the best of the week to publish. We reserve the right to edit for grammar and style but will try not to alter the meaning.

Send your submissions to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com. Please include your name, address and telephone number (only your name will be published) so we can contact you if we need to clarify something. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.–BL

Getting A Job

The race for the Presidency is focusing on which candidate will best help people get a job. During the Democratic National Convention, Michelle Obama weighed in on the matter: “We (she and husband President Barack Obama) have to fix this. We have so much more to do.”

Whoever is elected in November, whether Obama or GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, it will be his priority to improve the economy. If the economy does improve, that will create jobs. Yet two things strike me:

  1. The individual, not the government, must assume responsibility for his career path.
  2. It always has been difficult to find the job you want.

I was reminded of this when the first man to give me a job as a writer died last week at age 83. His name was Harald Gunderson and, as a teenager, he was a working cowboy. Later, he joined the Royal Canadian Navy. After that, he worked as a brakeman with the railroad until he finally got an opportunity to be a reporter for a small-town newspaper. A few years later, he got his big break and became a reporter for a large daily. He went on to successfully publish several magazines.

My dad, C. Vernon Myers, had a similar path.

In 1932, Vern had a college degree in geology and was awarded a gold medal as his college’s most outstanding graduate. He was certain he could get a good job and parlay that into the career that he wanted — to be a writer.

The Great Depression interrupted his ambitions for 12 years. There were no jobs available in the mining business, and the oil boom had not yet taken off in Canada.

Even though his parents had put every nickel they had in sending my dad away to college, he had to come back to the community and work on his parent’s homestead. He used to recount the shame he felt in their sacrificing so much only to see him working in the pen with hogs.

With his connection to a packing plant, he was able to get a job as a shipping clerk and had a guaranteed salary of $60 per month. He took various orders for hog livers, bacon and pork chops. He told me years later that he was dreadful at this job because he couldn’t keep the orders straight. And even though he was married at the time to his first wife (the daughter of the owner of the meat-packing empire), he wasn’t liked by the family. He was shipped off to the shipping floor where this once-college valedictorian spent his days hauling and packaging just-butchered pigs and cattle.

My dad had flat feet and was in so much pain he could barely walk home after a 10-hour shift. Physically spent and mentally unchallenged, he took his next job selling life insurance. He made a little more money and kept thinking about his ambition to be a writer. He read a book by Thomas H. Uzzell, who said: “When you write a million words, you will be competent at your craft.”

So Vern bought a used typewriter and after trying to sell life insurance six days a week, he would come home and pound out short stories. He later told me they were terrible but that after a couple of years and almost 1 million words, his work was showing improvement.

He tried to show his stories to newspaper editors, but to no avail. It was still the Depression, and new jobs for reporters were going to paper boys.

Finally Vern got a break because of World War II. He took a job helping to plan an oil pipeline from Canada to Fairbanks, Alaska. He was making $300 a month. He wrote a book in his spare time: Oil to Alaska.

After the war ended, he put all his savings into printing 1,000 copies of his book. He said they sold like “hotcakes.”

At the same time, there were two major oil strikes in Alberta. The two Calgary daily newspapers wanted someone who knew something about oil and who could also write. My dad walked into the publisher’s office with a copy of his book. The man skimmed it and after a few moments said: “Congratulations. You’re the new oil editor for the Calgary Herald.”

Nothing Worth Having Is Handed Out Freely

I knew the adversity my dad overcame, but I always assumed it was because of the Great Depression. I, too, wanted to be a writer; and I wrote for the university newspaper.

When I graduated in 1980, I was sure that some oil company would hire me as a public-relations writer. However, in 1980, Alberta’s oil boom had gone bust.

My dad had a successful investment newsletter, but he wasn’t going to give me a job out of the gate because he said I wouldn’t learn how to write if I was working for a monthly investment letter. He also wanted to see if I was willing to pay my dues.

Things had gotten so bad in Calgary that I was offered one job: to be a bank teller. I spent three months at that (I was abysmal at balancing my cash register) and quit my job on a Monday morning three days after marrying my wife Angie.

My parents paid for me to study journalism at a technical school for a year while Angie paid our living expenses with the salary she earned working at the hospital.

The next year, I was passing out my new resume. I wasn’t getting anywhere, but I still had one last place to go: Gunderson Publications. I did some research at the public library, got the latest copy of its flagship magazine, World of Beef, and saw that the publisher had just returned from his daughter’s cattle ranch in Ontario, Canada. I leveraged that to get into his office and started asking him about his trip, and how I wouldn’t disappoint him if he brought me on as a writer. He hired me. My starting salary was $700 a month.

I put in 3.5 years working for Harald. I covered one massive train wreck but spent most of my time at cattle shows and reporting on the results.

After a time, Vern thought I was good enough to start off as a researcher for his newsletter. My starting salary for MFE was $1,200 per month.

Nobody Owes You A Career

In the former Soviet Union, every citizen was guaranteed a job. What kind of job was decided by some committee. It doesn’t work that way in the United States, where there is still some liberty. Yet many people think they should be able to do what they want without the sacrifice — that the government or society should make it happen.

For example, my eldest son is a teacher in England. He has a life-long friend who calls himself a writer. This young man travels the world on the family’s money and writes a personal blog. He writes about things that interest him in his travels, and his writing is dreadful. I have suggested to him that if he wants to make a living as a writer, he has to make some sacrifices — like taking on a real writing job. Like so many people today, he doesn’t want to pay that price.

If these attitudes do not change, America’s fortunes are poor — regardless of who is elected President in November.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Keeping Up With The Obamas

President Barack Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney have been trotting out their wives, hoping the women will swing votes to them in the upcoming election. For almost four years, we have had to hear the media idiots report on how Michelle Obama grows a fresh garden on the grounds of the White House and how determined she is to see that our children eat healthier food. Not to be outdone, the Romney campaign has recently repeated ad nauseam that Ann Romney does the family’s laundry.

All of it is nonsense, and it leaves voters less informed about either candidate’s plans to revive the American economy. It also needs to be noted that some great first ladies have been married to terrible Presidents. (Rosalynn Carter comes to mind.)

It is more idiocy pressed upon us by media executives whose cash-cow programs are patterned after the likes of “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.”

It used to be that becoming a celebrity was a by-product of talent. Today, people like Paris Hilton and the Kardashians are celebrated and financially rewarded simply because they turned themselves into celebrities through living an extravagant lifestyle. On that score, may we please add the first lady?

Recently, on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas said she celebrated her gold medal by enjoying a McDonald’s Egg McMuffin.

Seated next to her was Obama, who preaches endlessly about healthy diets for our Nation’s young people. Obama told Douglas, “You’re setting me back, Gabby.” She declared that Americans should never be encouraged to eat Egg McMuffins.


BayouBuzz.com noted: “Michelle Obama needs to stop lecturing Americans on what they eat and start focusing on her own diet. In case anyone did not notice, she doesn’t exactly possess a model like figure.”

However, it is true that the first lady has the wardrobe of a rich supermodel. At an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, Obama was sporting a J Mendel cap-sleeve jacket that reportedly costs $6,800. The jacket is from the designer’s 2013 collection but is not yet available to the public. That means that even the Kardashian gals are simply going to have to wait.

There is plenty more that is disparate between Obama’s recollection of her poor family roots and the lifestyle she is living. Last summer, while bicycling near Martha’s Vineyard (the furthest thing from a discount vacation), Obama was photographed wearing a $156 T-shirt. The good news is she got it on sale from its original $200 price. I didn’t even know they made $200 T-shirts, but it turns out that Ann Romney won’t be outdone and has a $900 shirt.

Still the first lady is sticking to her story that she lives an ordinary life with the exception that she works out at 4:30 each morning. No comment from her on whether she trains in the $540 Paris house Lanvin sneakers she was seen wearing in 2009 at a Washington-area food bank.

And while President Barack Obama may be every bit as ineffective of a leader as former President Jimmy Carter, he certainly doesn’t live the spartan lifestyle of Carter, who bought his suits off the rack. While the Obamas play it poor, they are very much part of the wealthy 1 percent.

Jodi Kantor, in her book The Obamas, writes:

Even the president made uncomfortable jokes about why his wife needed so many new things. Behind the scenes, aides said, the Obamas were concerned about money: the president’s books could only sell so many copies, and it would be years until he could write more and the first lady could write her own. From vacation rental homes big enough to accommodate the Secret Service to all the personal entertaining they did at the White House, their lifestyle had grown fearsomely expensive.

Kantor, who began covering the Obamas for The New York Times in 2007, based her book on multiple interviews with 33 White House staffers.

National Review Online offers proof of how atypical the Obamas are:

President and Michelle Obama’s combined adjusted gross income in 2009: $5,505,409.

President and Michelle Obama’s combined income in 2010: $1,728,096.

President and Michelle Obama’s combined income in 2011: $789,674.

The Obamas’ combined adjusted gross income for 2008, their last year before moving into the White House, was $2,656,902.

The Millionaire Versus The Billionaire

A lot has been made out of GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s vast wealth and the rich-and-famous lifestyle he and his wife enjoy. Although Romney may not be worth $1 billion (at least not yet), we must assume he has a net worth in the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet it turns out that the Obamas are millionaires and will be worth a lot more after he leaves office (hopefully, sooner rather than later).

The problem for America with either Obama or Romney is that there is a disconnect between people with that kind of wealth and ordinary Americans who are still struggling to get out of a four-year recession — a downturn that could still turn into a depression.

Years ago, I was reading about the collapse of the Soviet Union. The writer said that for decades the members of the Soviet Politburo lived far from the poverty that had infested Moscow. They came to Red Square each day from their isolated villas in limousines whose windows were so darkly tinted they couldn’t even see the conditions that the people faced.

America will elect a President in two months. The Presidential candidates, along with the increasingly wealthy members of Congress, are ignorant of the growing economic burdens faced by Americans. (Forty-seven percent of Congress — 249 current members — are millionaires, according to a November 2011 study by the Center for Responsive Politics.)

This is the sort of isolation that contributed to the implosion of the Soviet Union. It is not incomprehensible that this could happen to America.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Ryan Not A Real Libertarian

Presumed Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney tagged a man named Paul for Vice President. There’s just one problem: He picked Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), not Ron Paul (R-Texas). The latter is a real libertarian, while the former is a big-government conservative.

Jane Aitken, founder of the New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition, wrote an opinion piece for Bedford Patch. The headline read: “Paul Ryan is no Ron Paul.”

The Daily Caller also weighed in last week: “It didn’t take long for libertarians to condemn Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan may have required his staffers to read Ayn Rand’s novels, but he’s no John Galt (a fictional character in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged). Over his nearly 14 years in Congress, Ryan has cast several votes unfit for an advocate of limited government. He voted for TARP, auto bailouts, and Medicare expansion. He also voted for No Child Left Behind and twice voted for stimulus spending.”

Paul cannot be excited about Romney tagging Ryan for the VP spot. In an interview given to Fox News last March, Paul called Ryan’s budget proposals timid and said that Ryan did not address the Federal government’s propensity for warmongering. Paul said he didn’t like that the Ryan plan might balance the budget in 30 years and did nothing to address America’s vast overseas military presence. Paul said instead of the Ryan plan he would slash overseas spending by first stopping “militarism” while maintaining spending for national defense.

As reported by Huffington Post, Paul said:

In my program… I address that first [cutting overseas military spending] I want to get home so that you don’t have to attack child health care or Medicare, even though those programs are bankrupt and you have to deal with them. But even in my first year of cutting a trillion dollars, I don’t touch that stuff [child health care or Medicare].

I’m not going after the benefits the Medicare, I’m not doing that initially… I would cut the money that they are screaming about, this overseas militarism.

I see people coming together… 67 percent people now want to come home from Afghanistan… I think the Republican lose the political argument immediately. [The Republican plan is] We want more weapons but we are going to deny the elderly for their healthcare.

Yet Ryan is likely a smart pick for Romney in that his nomination as Vice President will help Romney win the Presidency because it will garner votes from Tea Party supporters. That doesn’t mean that Ryan is anything other than a pretend libertarian. And he certainly isn’t alone in that category.

In his book Fed Up!, Texas Governor Rick Perry wrote: “If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas. If you don’t like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage, don’t move to California.”

While Perry was running for the Presidency, a Des Moines Register reporter asked the former Texas A&M yell leader: “What yell would you give to urge on your campaign?”

Perry replied: “Rick Perry. Liberty. Rick Perry. Freedom. Freedom is working. Liberty is working. We’ve got to get America working again.”

I wondered: what does it mean to be free? I looked up the definition of “libertarian.” The Free Dictionary defines the word as: “One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. One who believes in free will.”

Perry doesn’t have a clue what it means to be free. Freedom — and here is the key caveat — is doing what you want as long as you are not hurting another individual.

Let me say it straight: If my neighbor on one side is in a gay union and the neighbor on the other side smokes grass (and if is not hurting me or anyone else), why can’t they? That’s how I look at it; I am a true libertarian.

Perry dresses up in libertarian clothes, pretends to embrace individual freedoms and then at the first instance (when he doesn’t like what he sees) demands government intervention. That is not liberty my friends, that is pretend liberty and something very dangerous to the state of the union.

Romney may pretend to embrace smaller government and less taxation, but his track record as Governor of Massachusetts doesn’t support his argument. Nor does his businessman-first-and-foremost argument carry a lot of truth. As then-GOP hopeful Newt Gingrich pointed out to Romney during one of the GOP Presidential debates: “The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994.”

None of this makes the Romney/Ryan ticket less desirable than the alternative: another four loathsome years of Obama/Biden. It does, however, mean that this election isn’t going to give the sweeping changes that libertarians were hoping would come out of the grassroots Tea Party movement.

Barack Obama fashions himself an old-style Democrat, the likes of President John Kennedy. But what Kennedy wanted for the Nation half a century ago was affordable then. As the upsurge in Federal debt shows, it simply is not possible now.

If Obama looks to the Kennedy era, expect Romney to be a replay not of President Ronald Reagan, but his successor, President George H.W. Bush. That will mean continued excessive military spending and interventions overseas. It will mean continued large deficits.

Led by Romney/Ryan, the country may be 20 percent to 30 percent improved over what will happen if the Obama/Biden team is re-elected. But that won’t be a renaissance for America, and the end result will fall far short of making libertarians happy.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, while a Romney/Ryan victory is in the cards, I don’t think it will resuscitate the U.S. dollar. That inevitably means a continued deterioration in the greenback’s purchasing power — something you should consider before you buy any U.S. paper and before you sell any precious metals you have accumulated.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report