Women Uninformed About Medical Dangers of Birth Control Pill

Posted on December 8, 2010 by | Leave a comment

Human Life International America released a new national poll surveying teenaged and adult women showing widespread usage of the birth control pill despite women not knowing much about potential harmful effects.

The poll, conducted by professional firm the polling company/WomenTrend surveyed more than 800 women aged 15?44 in the United States.

Once learning that the birth control pill can raise the risk of contracting breast cancer, about 40 percent of women in the poll were more deterred from using it than before.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a New jersey-based breast cancer surgeon, is a presenter at the HLI conference and she says women need to know more about the potential problems.

“The most egregious omission affecting a young woman’s life is the fact that in 2005, the International Agency on Research of Cancer listed oral contraceptives as Group I carcinogens for breast, cervical and liver cancer,” she says. “You’ll find cigarettes and asbestos in the same group as risks for lung cancer.”

The poll found 78 percent of women have used the birth control pill and a 35% began using it under the age of 18. Thirty?five percent of women aged 15?44 who were surveyed said that they currently take oral contraceptives, while an additional 43% said that they had in the past but no longer do.

Fewer than one?in?five (19%) said they had never used oral contraceptives.

Three-fifths of women said they began taking the Pill to prevent pregnancy, and nearly two?thirds said that is the reason why they are still on it. This was the top reason across all demographic groups. Regulation of menstruation was the second?most common reason why women began oral contraceptives and remain on it

Women were less likely to have used another form of hormonal birth control — like contraceptive shots or patches – as two-thirds said they had never done so; 11% said they currently do, and 19%
said they did at one point.

Three?in?five women said they took the Pill (or used another form of hormonal birth control) after becoming sexually?active for the first time.

The survey found a majority of women don’t know the side effects of the pill and were more likely to share those sides effects than information about significant medical problems the pill caused.

All women surveyed – regardless of contraceptive use – said that knowing “there is new evidence to suggest that taking hormonal contraceptives may increase the risk of breast cancer” would give them serious pause; 44% concluded they would be less likely to take them, and 3% would be more likely. Still, 44% said such research made no difference to them.

While 49% of women were warned by a friend or physician about weight gain and 23% of headaches, only 40% were told of blood clots and the risk of stroke and 19% of increased risks of breast cancer.

In a second question, 54% of women said that use of the Pill for pregnancy prevention would not be worth it if further research shows that there is a definitive link between use of hormonal birth control and cancer; 32% said the risk would be worth the benefits of pregnancy prevention.

Ultimately, the poll found women generally believe the birth control pill has had a positive effect on them, their families, and society. By margins of at least 6?to?1, the impact of birth control was deemed more positive than negative on society, marriages, and relationships in the U.S.

Source: LifeNews.com, December 3, 2010

Leave a comment

Posted in health, news, research

Tagged , , , , ,

Restoring Constitutional Governanace in America?

Posted on December 7, 2010 by | Leave a comment

On 1 December 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States entered the following orders:

Case 10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA,
PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Case 10-560
SCHULZ, ROBERT L. V. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, ET AL

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Both cases were controversies involving subject matter critical to the primary governmental functions and intent of law set forth in the Constitution for the United States.

Kerchner was defending his individual Right to a President that is a natural born citizen.

Schulz was defending his individual Right to a government that does not give or lend public funds to private corporations for definitively private purposes (i.e., the $700 billion AIG and TARP financial bailouts), a power not inherent in the People, much less transferable or granted by the People to the Government.

The Judicial Article III of the Constitution guarantees Kerchner and Schulz that the merits of their cases would be heard by the independent, federal courts (“the judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution ..”).

However, the lower courts violated Article III, summarily dismissing the cases for “lack of standing,” on the (erroneous) ground that because the injuries to Kerchner and Schulz were no different from the injuries suffered by the rest of the people in the country, neither Schulz nor Kerchner’s Petitions to cure constitutional torts could proceed. By dismissing the cases on “lack of standing”, the courts essentially suggest that Kerchner and Schulz should have directed their Grievances to Congress – as if the issues raised were political questions and America was a pure democracy with rights granted by the will of the majority, rather than a Republic with unalienable, individual, Natural Rights, guaranteed by written Constitutions, enforceable through an independent Judiciary.

Kerchner and Schulz had Petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to overrule and reverse the “no standing” rulings of the lower courts and send the cases back to the lower courts for a hearing on the merits of the constitutional challenges. In denying both Petitions for Certiorari and avoiding a judicial examination of the merits for no other discernable reason than political eagerness, the Supreme Court added a ruthless sneer to the Grievances.

About all that can be said about the Kerchner and Schulz cases is we can add “presidential eligibility” and “corporate welfare” to the dung heap of other desecrations of our sacred Charters of Freedom, including but by no means limited to violations of the war, money, taxes, privacy, property, immigration, petition and sovereignty clauses — all of which have been the subject of repeated Petitions and court challenges that have been either ignored by government officials or tersely dismissed by abuses of one judicial doctrine or another.

Unfortunately, this leaves us – the People – with but one irrefutable conclusion: the Constitution is NOT now serving any meaningful purpose. The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of man and whim. The Constitution has become a mere menu of words, phrases and ideas which the government may choose to define or ignore at its sole will and discretion.

The way the system is working is in sharp contrast to the way it was designed to work. Ignoring Article V’s prescriptions for orderly change, our elected and appointed officials are now doing whatever they think best, literally unrestrained by either the written words of the Law itself or the intent behind those words – i.e., the set of principles, prohibitions and mandates proclaimed to govern them – the Constitution for the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Rather than three independent, co-equal branches of a highly-limited federal Government, each designed to be a check and balance on the other two, keeping them in their constitutional places, with the People possessing the ultimate Power, we now suffer the branches cooperating in decisions to deny the People their creator-endowed, unalienable Rights to life, Liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

OPTIONS, PLEASE!

The following question is for those among us who know that the Constitution is a set of principles to govern the government and is all that stands between the People and oppression, who know what the Constitution has to say about such current events as war, money, taxes, privacy, property, illegal immigration, and sovereignty.

What should a free People do when faced with the realization that their Constitution is being dishonored and disobeyed by their elected officials and judges, and that their creator-endowed Rights have been whittled away by elected servants who are taking over the house that the Founding Fathers designed “with reliance upon Divine Providence”?

We The People Foundation wants to hold a Liberty Summit in January for an open discussion with opinion leaders and others passionate about the Constitution about how to restore constitutional governance. It is hoped the Summit results in a plan of action agreeable to all.

To learn more, visit We the People Foundation webiste.

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics

Tagged , , , ,

Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen Willing to Sacrifice Military Effectiveness to Fulfill Obama Campaign Promise

Posted on December 7, 2010 by | Leave a comment

One message was loud and clear from the Senate Armed Services Committee’s two-day hearing on the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law: Secretary of Defense Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen care very little about what our combat troops think about the repeal of the law or its immediate harm to our national defense.

The actual survey numbers of the Pentagon study show that allowing gays to openly serve in the military would be a national security disaster. According to the survey and study, titled “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (Report):

* Nearly 60% of those in the Marine and Army combat units thought repealing the DADT law would harm their unit’s ability to fight on the battlefield.

* Up to a half-million service members may not reenlist should the ban be repealed (A disaster for our all–volunteer army that would require re-institution of the Draft).

* 91% would reject homosexual leaders.

* 71% would not share showers with homosexuals.

Senator John McCain spoke out on behalf of our combat service members. He continued his strong opposition to repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, and questioned Gates and Mullen on why they were not paying more attention to the negative impact a repeal of DADT would have on our combat troops.

Three Reasons Not to Repeal DADT

1) Senior Military Leaders are Opposed to Repeal

During today’s hearing, three of the four major service chiefs — Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos, Army Chief General George W. Casey, and Air Force Chief Norton Schwartz — informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that their best military advice was to keep the ban in place. Earlier in the year, General Casey told the Senate Committee that he had serious concerns about the impact of the repeal on a force engaged in two wars.

It is important to note that Gates and Mullen have muzzled other combat commanders from publicly expressing their opinion opposing repeal of the ban. Both Gates and Mullen publicly reprimanded three-star General Benjamin Mixon, Commander of the U.S. Army Pacific, for publicly expressing his objection to repeal.

To overcome these constraints on active duty senior officers to honestly express their opinion, 1,167 retired flag and general officers, 51 of them former four stars, signed an open letter to President Obama and Congress expressing great concern about the impact that a repeal would have on morale, discipline, unit cohesion and overall military readiness.

2) Health Risks are Perilous

AIDS would increase in the military once homosexuals were openly admitted into the military and restraints on their sexual behavior are removed. Heterosexual service members would be more likely to contract AIDS through injuries and battlefield transfusions. Drug abuse and suicides would increase as well, resulting in a dramatic increase in medical care costs. Ironically, the repeal would come at a time when Secretary Gates is seeking to cut and contain health costs in military.

3) A Radical anti-Christian Policy

To go along with repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, the Department of Defense recommended elimination of longstanding military laws prohibiting consensual sodomy and adultery.

An overwhelming majority of America’s Armed Forces are Christian. Yet the Report brushed aside the religious and moral objections to homosexuality by service members. Admitting that a large number of military chaplains believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and are required by God to condemn it as such, the Report argues that their objections can be overcome by education and training (brainwashing?).

Source: Thomas More Law Center, December 3, 2010

Leave a comment

Posted in military, news, politics

Tagged , , ,

Economic Liberty, Minimum Wage, and Socialism

Posted on December 6, 2010 by | Leave a comment

Jacob Hornberger, founder of The Future of Freedom Foundation, published a series of essays by the title “Economic Liberty and the Constitution” The last essay explains how the Minimum Wage became law with the help of the Supreme Court.

Hornberger points out that the Courts consistently ruled that Minimum Wage laws were unconstitutional on the grounds that that they violated the liberty of contract as guaranteed by the Due Process clause of 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Under threat of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s of packing the Supreme Court with younger justices more sympathetic to his socialist policies, five of the four justices rule in favor of upholding Washington State’s minimum wage law in the case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish.

The era of economic liberty in America came to end in the 1937 case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish.

The Court’s reversal of previous constitutional precedence unleashed a torrent of socialist welfare programs and state regulatory paternalism that has yet to be stopped.

It’s safe to say that most Americans don’t even know the extent of the economic revolution that took place in their country during the 1930s. They continue to believe that the Great Depression was caused by natural forces and that FDR “saved” freedom and free enterprise with his new system of welfare and regulation, according to Hornberger.

In addition to Hornberger’s essay, economic freedom must be seen as is a moral matter that requires either self-regulation of its practitioners or societal sanctions against unjust practices.

Capitalism is the best political economy possible only when governed by moral principles. Self-interested pursuit of wealth alone cannot make it a just system, only its practitioners can. The myth of the capitalist market is that it, not government bureaucrats, biggest and most influential corporations, wealthy self-interested elites, or the lying traders of goods or services, mysteriously regulate itself to the benefit of all.

Adam Smith didn’t even believe that. He was a rotten egalitarian when it came to public policy of business. He knew big corporations were quasi-government organization with potentially dominating power requiring regulatory oversight to protect the small business concerns. After all, corporations are created and given person (citizen) status by government through incorporation law. Because the corporation was to serve the common good of its community, getting and maintaining licensing was tied to the fulfillment of stated goals of local benefit. With the rise of national corporations like the railroads, local accountability and benefit ended. Today, national monopoly laws have effectively ended for the good of international corporate competitiveness. That is why a few multi-national corporations dominate 80% of nearly all of their respective markets. It is called globalism. The mystery is how it is connected to socialism.

Jacob Hornberger’s essays on “Economic Liberty and the Constitution” are accessible at The Future of Freedom Foundation website.

Leave a comment

Posted in news

Why Ending Bush Tax Cuts Of Americans Making Over $250,000 Is Not A Good Idea

Posted on December 5, 2010 by | 1 comment

If the Democrat economic plan were not primarily beneficial to government coffers, I would be for it.
I serious doubt the economy will benefit greatly by merely maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the middle. Those with incomes over $250,000 may benefit more, but they also have more disposable income to spend. Spending helps maintain GDP. More importantly, it maintains tax revenues. Therefore, I have to agree with the Republicans. Raising taxes on anyone during a prolonged economic recession is not a good idea. Because the high-income group has more disposable income to spend, they are key to keeping a modicum of economic stability.

Democrats are doing a very poor job of making themselves look good. They are showing Americans that their agendas are more important than the common good.

Someone is bound to respond: Well, duh!

However, when looking at taxation and economic growth in the long-term, I think Americans with taxable incomes over $250,000 should pay considerable higher taxes.

How could that be good?

First, it’s contiguous with founding idea of economic liberty. Thomas Jefferson is representative of a large numbers early Americans who believed the rich should pay for government services to the poor. They believed it was immoral for rich Americans to have much while poor Americans lacked. Thomas Jefferson was no welfare socialists either. Like many others, he opposed low paying wage labor because it was a form of slavery.

Second, the rich paying for welfare to the poor should inspire them to change the political economy engendering poverty and welfare. Jefferson seemed to think making the rich pay to help the poor would motivate the wealthy to devise programs to ensure the poor actually gained skills by which to earn high incomes in order to live independent of rich charity or tax funded government services. I suspect Jefferson would have favored living wage standards as opposed to minimum wages.

Lastly, it seems unjust for the working poor and the middle class to pay for problems created by the wealthy and societal institutions. The Courts didn’t have to encourage the working poor to adopt socialism in order establish economic rights against big manufacturing firms. The Courts could have forced Congress to deal with the issue of low wage slavery. Against the ready argument that freedom of contract and market value would be violated, the Courts and other authorities could have applied Adam Smith’s capitalistic view that large manufacturing corporations were quasi-government institutions requiring regulation, i.e., regulation to prevent low wage slavery. It was the founding generation, those like Jefferson, who thought it unjust to tax all Americans (including the working poor and middle class) to cover the problems of the poor.

Remember, Jefferson wrote “all men were created equal,” which appears not to mean equal opportunity to pay taxes for welfare.

Besides all of that, the stock markets have not declined to 1990 levels, which indicate a somewhat healthy economy still exists–that is if a political economy can be regarded as such. It is healthy because those making over $250,000, like the Democrat and Republican politicians on Capitol Hill, are working to keep their stock portfolios profitable.

1 Comment

Posted in economy, politics, taxes

Tagged , , , , ,

Continental Congress Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1782

Posted on November 25, 2010 by | Leave a comment

The following is a reproduction of the First Thanksgiving Proclamation of the Continental Congress. It also provides evidence that under our constitutional form of government (albeit, the first constitution) the United States of America was in fact a Christian nation. It seems illogical to either appeal to or thank the god of deism who is no longer involved in human affairs. Only the biblical God is involved in the daily affairs of men and states. Thus, the following official state proclamation calls for collective gratitude to the Judeo-Christian God.

——————–

IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged; the present happy and promising state of public affairs; and the events of the war, in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils, which is so necessary to the success of the public cause; the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their Allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them; the success of the arms of the United States, and those of their Allies, and the acknowledgment of their independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States:—– Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.

Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleventh day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh.

JOHN HANSON, President.
Charles Thomson, Secretary.

PRINTED AT EXETER.

Leave a comment

Posted in history, politics, Thanksgiving

Tagged , , , ,

Justice Scalia: Founders Never Imagined Abortion “Rights”

Posted on November 25, 2010 by | Leave a comment

By Steven Ertelt

In a speech at the University of Richmond in Virginia on Friday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed again his view that the Constitution contains no so-called abortion rights.

He told the audience during his speech, that is only now drawing attention, that the founders of the nation never envisioned a right to an abortion when drafting the Constitution that is supposed to guide the federal courts.

Scalia criticized, according to an AP report, those who misinterpret the 14th Amendment’s due process clause to include abortion.

“But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word—liberty—nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted,” Scalia said. “Abortion? It was criminal in all the states.”

Scalia repeated his view that the Constitution should be taken literally, as written, rather than interpreting it to include rights not intended to be protected under law.

“The Constitution says what it says and it doesn’t say anything more. For flexibility, all you need is a legislature and a ballot box,” he added, in terms of how abortion advocates should attempt to change the constitution if they want to have legal abortions.

By allowing the Supreme Court to create rights not enumerated by the Constitution – “you’re allowing five out of nine hotshot lawyers to run the country.”

“Unless the words have meaning and unless judges give them their fair meaning, democracy doesn’t work,” Scalia said during an address entitled “Do Words Matter?”

Earlier this year, Scalia spoke at a conference sponsored by the Mississippi College School of Law and condemned activists who back the use of international law in the U.S. legal system, saying they are selective when they want to use it.

Scalia oppose the use of international law and decisions by foreign courts to interpret the Constitution.

“If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the founders of our country, surely it was the notion that we Americans should be governed the way Europeans are,” he said, according to the Jackson Free Press newspaper.

“I dare say that few of us here would want our life or liberty subject to the disposition of French or Italian criminal justice—not because those systems are unjust, but because we think ours is better,” the pro-life jurist added.

But Scalia says those who advocate using foreign law do so selectively and ignore how many foreign laws oppose abortion and foreign courts have issued decisions allowing pro-life laws and abortion restrictions.

“I will become a believer in the ingenuousness, though never the propriety, of the Court’s newfound respect for the wisdom of foreign minds when it applies that wisdom in the abortion cases,” Scalia said.

[Thank God for Justice Scalia and his view]

This article was orginially published by LiteNews.com, November 23, 2010

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics, Thanksgiving

Tagged , ,

Thanksgiving, Roots of Freedom

Posted on November 24, 2010 by | Leave a comment

Thanksgiving is a unique national religious holiday. It was the first religious celebration for the settling and founding of the American state. As noted in previous posts, the first Thanksgiving Day proclamation was in 1619 at the Berkeley Plantation state. The plantations were states because they formed civil societies based on natural law. Later in colonial history, the plantations began forming constitutional forms of governance as well as a confederation. In 1776, all plantation states came together to create the United States of America and to form the first national constitution. All of which, conformed to the Law of Nations.

All of the plantation states were formed based on two-part compacts. Like our national compact consisting of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the plantation states (colonies) were founded by a written covenant. The Plymouth Combination is the most famous version.

Although Thanksgiving became a national holiday in the 1960s, there have perpetual proclamations like the Berkeley Plantation Proclamation and many national proclamations like the Continental Thanksgiving Proclamation, for example President George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. Throughout American history, each and every Thanksgiving Proclamation has been a call for collective gratitude to the biblical God with whom the governed consented to covenant with at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Therefore, it behooves Americans to continue to repent of wrongs done against God and to offer thanks for helping our ancestors to gain the freedom and inherent rights. Like Esau of biblical history, we have in large measure forfeited our birthright for bread and circus. It might be a good time to reflect on how to regain that birthright of independence as defined in the natural law Declaration of Independence and the Bible.

As a starting point, we might consider the Proclamation given by President George Washington:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted’ for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Washington also was known to preach biblical sermons to the troops when he though necessary during the Revolutionary War.

Leave a comment

Posted in Bible, politics, religion, Thanksgiving

Tagged , , ,

First Official Thanksgiving in America

Posted on November 23, 2010 by | Leave a comment

Each first Sunday in November a Thanksgiving Festival is held at the Berkeley Plantation in accordance with documentation from 1619. The event fulfills instructions given to the 38 settlers who arrived on the banks of the James River at Berkeley Hundred as documented in the proclamation:

“Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God.”

The settlers set sail in a ship called The Margaret from the Port of Bristol in England, where at the Berkeley Castle funding for the journey was supplied by landowners including Sir Richard Berkeley and William Throckmorton. Agriculture was going through difficult times and many people in the area wanted to start a new life for themselves in America, and so they joined the leaders Sir John Woodleefe, George Thorpe, and John Smyth, who had planned this remarkable and historic voyage. Although they encountered severe weather that delayed their journey, the landing on December 4, 1619, is well documented by the Virginia Company of London.

Charles Berkeley from the Berkeley Castle stressed in his speech for the 1994 Virginia First Thanksgiving Festival that “this was the first thanksgiving to be held on American soil but it was not officially recognized until President Kennedy’s term of office in the 1960s, as beforehand the Pilgrim Fathers were considered to have been the first American settlers to offer Thanksgiving. The Berkeleys in fact preceded them . . . .”

Former Virginia Governor Mills Godwin summarized the setting well in his 1981 remarks: “Berkeley has been a working plantation in Virginia since 1619, and a handsome brick manor house was built here early in the 18th Century. Here was born Benjamin Harrison, V, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a post-Revolutionary Governor of Virginia, and his son, William Henry Harrison, the ninth President of the United States. Today, while privately owned, Berkeley has been magnificently restored and is open to the public as one of America’s distinguished historic shrines.”

As we express our gratitude at these Thanksgiving events, so we live out our words by offering thanks, remembering the past, and pledging to continue the great legacy of those before us who celebrated perpetually . . . and look forward to a great future in this free nation.

Source: Covenant News Newswire, November 21, 2005

Leave a comment

Posted in history, Thanksgiving

Tagged ,

FED’s $600 Billion Quantative Easing Tax, Is it Necessary?

Posted on November 22, 2010 by | Leave a comment

Charles Plosser, CEO of Philadelphia’s Federal Reserve, addressed an audience at Cato Institute on the topic of employing monetary policy to prevent asset bubbles, which caused the current recession. He told the audience that using monetary policy to adjust interest rates in order to compensate for asset price gaps (bubbles) was not a good idea. One example given was raising rate on mortgages to restrict rising housing prices. Two reasons for being against employing broad-based monetary policy for individual asset markets like housing were: (1) The risk of wrecking havoc in other parts of the economy is too great, and (2) no precise measure of asset-movement exists by which to form sound rule-based monetary policy. (Read his Cato speech titled “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble: A Dangerous Brew for Monetary Policy.)

John Mauldin, CEO of Millenium Wave Advisers, came to a similar conclusion about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s decision to inflate the economy through the latest $600 billion quantitative easing. Bernake’s reason was to prevent deflation, which means core inflation rate as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) dropped below 1 percent. Core inflation is all consumer goods except food and energy. Mauldin claims core inflation is actually about 1.5% not 0.6% when housing costs are removed.

There seems to be two reasons Mauldin measures inflation without housing costs: (1) Historically, the Bernanke should have used monetary policy to lower an increasingly high inflation rate back in 2005 that was caused by the housing price bubble. (2) More important is the fact that over the past few years housing cost is growing at near zero percent (see the chart below).

If Puru Saxena, CEO of Hong Kong based Puru Saxena Wealth Management, is right, Bernake’s quantitative easing will not revive the U.S. economy. Just like the previous two stimulus bailouts, quantitative easings never do. (Read his article titled “Band-Aid Solutions”

What Bernanke’s cash infusion will do is devalue the dollar. This will causing food, energy, and everything else to rise, which will act as a tax on disposable income. Less disposable means fewer sales. As Mauldin also pointed out, food and energy costs already are high for those with lower income. These people will suffer the most as a result of the Fed’s easy quantitative induced inflation.

There are some creative ideas that could solve the housing price problem. For example, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA could rent their growing stock of foreclosed houses, which would keep some people in their homes. Banks also could lend to investors (landlords) to buy cheap housing if they promise to rent them out. Read Maudlin’s article “O Deflation, Where is Thy Sting?” to learn more.

Leave a comment

Posted in economy, news, politics, taxes

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,