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.

What Were the Republican Years About?

I recently read a post on digg by the engineer2008. He started out writing a paragraph of an article in which George Packer interviewed Buchanan, who worked for Nixon and secured his winning that election. I was interest in the Article because I remember watching the election so I clicked on the title, 'The Fall of Conservatism. Have the Republicans run out of Ideas.' It took me to http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer

The interview covered the early Nixon years when Buchanan worked for Nixon's campaign and helped him get elected. Buchanan tells Packer about an idea they came up with. Nixon and Buchanan had an idea of creating a new majority bordering on the fenced grounds of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Well it worked because Nixon won by a land slide that election.

Buchanan tells Packer in the interview: 'The sixties, which began in liberal consensus over the Cold War and civil rights, became a struggle between two apocalyptic politics that each saw the other as hellbent on the country’s annihilation. The result was violence like nothing the country had seen since the Civil War, and Perlstein emphasizes that bombings, assaults, and murders committed by segregationists, hardhats, and vigilantes on the right were at least as numerous as those by radical students and black militants on the left.

What are the Republican years about? What is any Republican year in the Oval Office about? It can be summed up with the last sentence of the article. 'Nixon claimed to speak on behalf of "the nonshouters, the nondemonstrators," but the cigar smokers in that South Carolina hotel were intoxicated with hate.'

They can call themselves the 'Moral Majority, the Right-Winged Party, The Evangelical Right, The Family Value Party,' But to me, they will always be no different that the NAZI party of Germany.

The Up-Swing Continues

In reading a money news article by Adam Schreck the AP Business Writer it is clear that the rise in Oil Prices is not over. Late Wednesday the price per barrel hit over $144.00 just as the government reported an unexpected drop in U.S. supplies with the threat of attacking Iran on the traders minds.

Speculation? It seems every time the oil people sneeze, and something in government happens it is the traders on Wall Street who frantically sell, trade, buy causing speculation that drives up the oil price. But don't take my word for it.

Good luck this 4th of July at the pumps. And expect higher prices all the way around the grocery stores and utilities.

Positive trade? Really?

According to Joe Bruno, an AP business writer, 'bargain hunting in the trade market today sent shares up then soaring downward only to creep up slowly toward the end of the day.' Yet it was called a positive trade and say we could be headed for recovery. Really?

Well, Ford motor Co. in its' report stated that sales dropped sharply in June. That does not sound like a recovery to me.

Oil rose again in record high levels. That does not sound like a recovery to me.

And according to Scott Mayerowitz a member of the ABC business news unit, during these hard times, as companies cut back like the airlines and cell phones so does the customer service. That does not sound like a recovery to me.

And many of the free-bee stuff that you used to get in some industries like the hotels and motels, will now cost you.

The associated press economics writer, Martin Crutsinger concerning the continuing slump in housing, he stated in his money news report that for the 11th time in the past year construction spending fell in May. In fact 'home builders have been frantically slashing back on their production in the face of the worst slump in housing in more than two decades.' That does not sound like a recovery to me.

And with all the news articles written on the oil, whether it was demand or speculation to blame for the oil hikes, another article was there on the news again. Yep, this time it was Barbara Lewis who claims that it is demand not the speculation on Wall Street that is responsible for the price hike. Hmm, I wonder. Were any of these news reporters around in the 1970s'.

Remember that time in history, During the Nixon and Ford years when they claimed that it was DEMAND that drove the price of oil from .25 cents a gallon to $1.40. Oh, you were not born yet. Well let me inform you of REAL HISTORY. You see a few of the OIL people in TEXAS got together and on paper transferred the ownership of oil from family member to family member to in-law to cousin. That process created a shortage on paper. But there was NO real Shortage nor was there an Increase in demand. However, there were long lines at the pump, the price jumped from .25 cents to .50 cents to .75 cents to $1.00 in a very short time. By the end of the three years the price jumped to $1.43 per gallon. But it wasn't until Carters time when an investigation of the Oil shortage and demand revealed that there was no shortage at all and that the demand was never increased. There were government hearings and a trial. There was serious talk of sentencing and jail time. But then Reagan became president and then Ronald Reagan slapped the American Citizen in the face when he gave clemency to the OIL people from TEXAS. And anyone who refuses to believe it, was either not born yet, or is still in denial. Do your own research in the Libraries your self. Scan all the old news articles of the time. Yep, the Oil People got the American Citizen to believe that Carter was a bad president, but in fact he was the only American president who went after the Oil People of Texas when they had the power. I wonder if any other American president could ever have the courage to take on the OIL PEOPLE who are now in control of the global economy.