Soaring Past $147.00 A Barrel

In reading the money news article by Associated Press Writer, Madlen Read, Friday July 11, 2008, I was hit with oil fatigue. It was shocking when the oil had soared to $100.00 a barrel back in February 2008. Now here we are averaging at $150.00 a barrel just 5 months later. Putting the national average at over $4.00 a gallon while the price has hit San Mateo California at $5.21 and 9/10 a gallon for regular with premium at $5.45 and 9/10.

The Managing Director of FACTS Global Energy in Energy in Singapore, Jeff Brown was quoted as saying, "There's always a fear premium in pricing. The tensions in Iran and the threat of supply disruption will help support oil prices,"

Of course the rising tensions between the Western countries and Iran with the 'Potential' of Nigerian militant group resuming their attacks on the Nigerian oil facilities seem to be having an effect on the 'traders and Investors' as they did their end-of-the-week-trade. And the shrinking American U. S. dollar was also to blame. Then there is also the possibility of a strike by oil workers in Brazil. But so far the only definite thing that has occurred is our devalued U. S. dollar. All the other factors for the rise during these 5 months were only probabilities.

There may not be much that we can do to stop the downward spiral of the U. S. dollar, however news on a repeat of possible threats seems to be having an effect on the 'trading and investing on Wall Street' thus controlling the price in the consumer market.

A Sworn Oath Testimony

We have Rules and Laws in our lives and our government to maintain stability and order. They exist for the stability of the way of life in which we live. To be issued a Subpoena is to be, by law, ordered to appear and give testimony under oath, 'To-Tell-The-Truth-The-Whole-Truth-And-Nothing-But-The-Truth!' If the oath is violated and it is discovered that the statement that was given under oath to be a lie, then the person under oath is charged with perjury, which carries with it a penalty of prison time.

So why would someone who is/was a member of the Bush Administration feel that he/she does not have to be sworn in prior to their testimony. Could it be that the person knows that their statement would perjure himself/herself. In other words, that person wants to 'LIE' and not be charged with perjury. Remember that refusing to co-operate with an order of subpoena is breaking the law. That is why Republican Linda Sanchez, who is the Chairman of the House Subcommittee, ruled that Republican Karl Rove was breaking the law to co-operate with the Congressional Subpoena by refusing to testify.

Other Republicans are calling it a political ploy of the Democrats in insisting that Karl Rove give an oath to say the truth and nothing but the truth in his testimony. Yet Republican Linda Sanchez recognizes the law, and unlike her fellow Republicans, is under the legal oath of following the letter of the law just as the Democrats on the House Subcommittee are under the legal oath to do.

I wonder if any of us could so easily 'REFUSE' to give the sworn oath, thus allowing us to lie in our testimony, if we at any time are ordered by a subpoena to testify in court. I guess we all know the answer to that one.

Iran Missiles Cause Campaign Concerns

Test missiles in Iran caused concerns in the Middle East and western world bringing the price per barrel up in other regions of the world whose price was always lower than ours.

Both candidates of the United States presidential election were asked: "Does Israel have a right to a preemptive strike against Iran?" Not surprising candidates views differ. What is surprising is who said what.

John McCain said, "I can't know whether a strike would be justified because I don't know the progress or the nature or the significance of the threat." Am I surprise by the Republican candidate response. No! Since Israel is not an oil rich country I did not expect any republican to care. Look at their history. No rich resource, no care. Can you here me now?

Obama on the other hand, being the presidential candidate who puts people over 'Foreign Oil Interest' answered the question in the right, humanitarian way: "Israel always has the right to protect itself from serious threats and Iran is a serious threat."

Now, what do we do about Iran. John McCain says, "Defense shield in Europe."

Obama says, "What we should have been doing from the start, instead of engaging in over-the-top rhetoric, what we should be doing is gathering our allies together in a serious effort to apply sanctions to Iran and encourage them to change their behavior."

But how did Iran get this far? In late 2002 and early 2003, wasn't it Bush and Rumsfeld who both said with straight face in front of the news cameras, to the American people and the world that Iran was our friend? Wasn't it Bush and Rumsfeld and the Republican party who insisted that we can now trust the information coming out of Iran regarding the WMD's in Iraq? And wasn't it the Bush administration who patted themselves on the back insisting of better relations with lifting the sanctions against Iran at that time and increasing the exports to Iran?

Well, the WMD's were not in Iraq! That did not and does not surprise me, after all the Iranian government have not been honest in any of their claims of the past since the take over of the Shaw. However, just as I warned on the discussion boards in late 2002 and early 2003, I do have an erie feeling that the Iran government played us during that time period of trying to get us tied up in a war that would prove be difficult to get out of since we already had been trying to deal with the real terrorists at that time, Bin Laden and Al Qaida and the Taliban. Yes, the Iranian government reeled the Bush administration in, 'HOOK-LINE-and-SINKER.

So how do we save face. Do we do as John McCain says, as he is trying to save face for the Bush Republican Administration, who have not yet been held accountable for their role in ignoring the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency's warning about Iran. Our own current history already proves that the Republican party 'Helped Iran To Get This Far Since 2002.'

Or do we follow Obama and his suggestion of beginning a process of drawing the line, which the Bush Republican Administration abandoned in the first place. Remember, the beginning process is only the beginning process, which does have to change as the circumstances call for.

But the correct actions have already elude the Republican party. Do we really want more of the same mistakes with another Republican Administration.

Yes, It Is A Fix. No, It Is Not!

According to Jeannine Aversa the AP economics writer on the news website, abcnews.com, the Federal Reserve will issue new home lending rules that the financial institutions have to follow sometime next week. According to the report, "It is suppose to protect future homeowners from dubious lending practices..." But the new rules will only apply to the new loans to prevent a repeat of the current mortgage mess.

Yet there is nothing to fix the current mortgage mess. I am still waiting.

If half of $75,000.00 is $37,500.00 than $40,000.00 is almost half and no where near 25%. That means every time my husband did a refinancing of our home (2 x's since his high tech job was outsourced 5 to 6 years ago and our bills were piling up), the brokers, whom the financial institutions began using for home loans, lied to my husband and stole almost half of the money loaned each time. Of course the grand total of the entire 1st loan, $75,000.00, was what was added to our mortgage. Plus the second time my husband did the refinancing from a different financial institution, he took out half and thought for sure he would get a better deal since the broker promised that it was a fixed 30 year loan. None of our refinancing were a quick-over-night. In fact each one would take 1 month to 2 months to go through. During the signing of the loan they said that the people re-financing the loan had to make a change for one reason or another. We asked what the changes were but they were never clear as to what the change was, just that it was necessary.

Well the 30 year fixed was a lie, which we did not discovered until we received the new billing in the mail. It had the APR set for the higher rate in February 2009, only 2 years after the signing the documents. In fact in a 10 month period our new mortgage account was sold to a different company we did not have a contract with who totally refused to help us get into a 30 year fixed with NO MONEY OUT. Why? Since they know we were lied to, they should be willing to help us get into a 30 year fixed that we can afford with our home.

Now, one of the excuses used by the Financial institutions is that people with bad credit should not qualify. Yet my husband and I had 'EXCELLENT CREDIT' before his high tech job was outsourced. Gone is the Medical coverage. It all comes out of pocket and every year more and more has to be ignored, like my asthma. I stay inside a lot. My husband heart condition can not be ignored. He has heart attacks and had a single bi-pass and is on heart medications. No medical insurance to pay for anything. His Emergency room visits, hospital stay bills cannot be paid until he gets a permanent job in his field to pay monthly payments. So our credit report is bad now since his job has been 'OUTSOURCED TO INDIA' since January 2002.

Now think about this. My husband contacted the financial institutions and thought he was dealing with them directly. They would take the information, do a quick review to see if we qualified, then have a broker contact him. The broker always introduced himself/herself as a representative of the Financial institution. But after everything was done, and we realized something was wrong, we would talk to the Financial institution and be told that the broker was not their employee, but an independent broker.

And in one of the cases, after all the paper work was finished and we received the billing, I called to question why it did not say FIXED instead of the APR, their response to me was that I can complain about the independent broker to a phone number of theirs.

What??? They were the ones who had that broker contact us. Who are they kidding? That phone number is just that financial institutions customer service.

So now the Feds are going to introduced new rules for lending institutions to protect future homeowners from unfair practices in future new loans. Yet I just listed a few unfair and unlawful practices that they did and are still doing to me. How can the Unfair Practices be OK to continue to happen to me, but not to the next guy.

That is so-not-right.