Making access more difficult

August 30, 2011

I wrote to Sen. Warner of Virginia and he has never written me back.  The same is true of Obama and his new administration  “is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history.”  Except that-er- he does not write back when citizen send in their thoughtful comments.  The  TSA does not have a phone number to contact them.  I suppose that when they steal from passengers and do other police state actions they don´t want to have to listen to irate citizens protesting…just like communist China.  Anyway I found this article interesting.


They’re Public Servants—Doesn’t That Mean They Should Listen to the Public?

August 30, 2011

silencedWhy are some of your legislators refusing emails from you—and what are we doing about it?


What does it tell us when our elected officials seal themselves up in Washington and refuse to take emails from the people who elected them?


No, we’re not making this up. Nor is it just an isolated case here and there. A surprising number of senators and representatives refuse to listen to American citizens by making it extremely difficult for them to provide public comments. So much for the democratic process!


We believe citizens should have the right to quickly, simply, and easily contact Congress to make their voices and opinions heard. But certain legislators refuse to accept email messages submitted by third parties like ANH-USA or other nonprofit advocacy groups. Instead, they set up complicated web forms as a way to discourage comment.


Here are the offenders, in alphabetical order:


Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX, District 6)
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL, District 13)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA, District 44)
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA, District 2)
Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-CA, District 49)
Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-NC, District 3)
Rep. Connie Mack IV (R-FL, District 14)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, (R-CA, District 22)
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rep. Devin G. Nunes (R-CA, District 21)
Sen. James E. Risch (R-ID)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ, District 5)
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX, District 32)
Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-AL)


Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) was on that list, but after we contacted him about the issue, he is now accepting our alerts. We thank him, and applaud his willingness to listen to his constituents.


In addition to the above elected officials,, the website used by federal agencies to receive comments on proposed rules, guidance, etc., changed its interface last year to ensure that third-party organizations like ANH-USA could not supply comments from our members and readers. Every time our software company would fix the issue, would change their interface again. After speaking with directly, they admitted that they didn’t want to receive comments from third-party websites.


Readers, rest assured that we’ve been mailing in your comments so they’re received by the agencies—whether they like it or not!


Please phone your elected officials today and tell them to remove obstacles to democratic participation! Our Call-In Action Alert lets you look up your legislators’ phone numbers, and gives you guidelines and a script outline you can refer to when you call. Or, if you prefer, go to the legislator’s website and send in a message using their form. But don’t be surprised if it isn’t possible to send in any message you want. Some of the forms require that you comment on a specified list of topics—another barrier to free communication.


Even if your elected officials are not on the list, you can still participate. Please phone at 1-877-378-5457 and tell them you want your voice to be heard! You can use the same Action Alert—you won’t need to adapt the talking points very much to tailor them for a government agency instead of a legislator’s office.


Refuse to be silenced!


Bill Clinton´s new Diet

August 30, 2011

Bill Clinton has lost 24 pounds on a new mostly vegan health diet (see video below).  I do not completely share the views of the doctors, because I think that animal products if they are truly organic from healthy animals, can and probably should be incorporated in moderation into a balanced diet.  I wonder if Clinton´s wonderful results are less to do with cutting out all animal products, and more to do with simply cutting out all of the processed, unhealthy, chemical laden animal products that infest our food supply.  After all meat, milk and eggs as we know them are not healthy products because they are full of chemicals and come from completely unhealthy factory farms.  I believe that quality saturated fats are necessary and have been overly demonized.  Also sugar and starch can easily lead to metabolic syndrome which in tern leads to: diabetes, obeisity, hard disease, cancer, brain aging, etc.

The real key I believe to improving our diet is to eat a varied and moderate diet and make sure to consume organic, minimally processed, and high quality foods.  In other words, to avoid most of the things that you find in the supermarket.  Our food supply is poisoned and we need to get away from it.  If we all ate like our great grandparents, I believe that we would be a lot healthier.

GM not honoring certain warranties

August 30, 2011

GM is not honoring the warranties of card that they made before they declared bankruptcy.  Considering all the money that the people have given them, they should do better.


For each of seven studies that were analyzed, the research team compared the group with the highest chocolate consumption against the group with the lowest consumption (to minimize bias, they factored in differences in the way each study had been designed). Bottom line: the highest levels of chocolate consumption were associated with an astounding 37 percent reduction in cardiovascular disease and an almost 30 percent reduction in stroke compared with lowest levels of chocolate eating.

Learn more:

The Heart Benefits of Chocolate

August 30, 2011

Here is more news that chocolate is good for the heart.  Remember to eat minimally processed high quality dark chocolate.

“For each of seven studies that were analyzed, the research team compared the group with the highest chocolate consumption against the group with the lowest consumption (to minimize bias, they factored in differences in the way each study had been designed). Bottom line: the highest levels of chocolate consumption were associated with an astounding 37 percent reduction in cardiovascular disease and an almost 30 percent reduction in stroke compared with lowest levels of chocolate eating.”

Learn more:

Steve Jobs

August 30, 2011

Steve Jobs is stepping down from Apple because he is very sick and will probably die fairly soon.  I want to do a deeper analysis on the man soon, but for the moment I want to state the obvious that the man is a genius and that without Apple I believe that the company will slowly drift into mediocrity.  It has a lot going for it now, which will keep it going forward into the future, but I doubt that Apple will continue to scale new highs without Jobs.  Within a few year Apple will become more like other companies without Jobs at the helm.

The real China

August 30, 2011

For those who want an Orwellian view of the underbelly of China, read this.  It is not all economic development.


Peter Schiff

August 30, 2011

Another great Peter Schiff column (below) pointing out how the media is trying to discredit Ron Paul.  If the powers at be are so intent on taking him down he must be a threat to the corrupt political system and must be neutralized.



Peter Schiff

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Picking up where they left off in 2008, the media is in the midst of a campaign to ignore and undermine the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul (they gave me even rougher treatment during my 2010 Senate run).  Political pundits just do not know what to do with a candidate who fails to fit into the blue and red boxes that form the simple narrative of American politics. They are perturbed by the grass roots nature of the campaign, by the strange honesty and earnestness of the candidate and his supporters, and the odd mixture of conservative values and liberty-minded policies. And like most adolescents, they reject what they don’t understand.


The media’s revulsion reached a fever pitch in the wake of the August 12 Iowa Straw Poll, the first test of the strength of Republican Presidential candidates. Objectively the results were a dead heat between Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul, who captured 28% and 27% of the votes respectively. But you would never have known that based on the subsequent media coverage.


The story that almost all news outlets ran with was that the poll produced a “top-tier” of candidates that included Bachman, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry (both Romney and Perry received less than 5% of the Iowa vote). There was almost no mention of Congressman Paul’s strong performance. The media also ignored how Perry’s entrance into the race will draw votes away from Bachman, thereby benefiting Paul. The media silence even prompted comedian Jon Stewart to issue a hilarious and scathing indictment.


Now the media is even impugning what should be seen as the Congressman’s most successful accomplishment: the performance of his investment portfolio.


In an August 20 article entitled “Candidate of Doom and Gloom,” Barron’s Magazine goes out of its way to characterize Ron Paul’s gold mining-heavy portfolio allocation as simplistic, robotic, and unpatriotic. And while the reporter, Barron’s Washington bureau chief Jim McTague, grudgingly recognized how these “stopped clock” investments had made strong gains over the last few years, he glaringly under-reported the long term success and wisdom of the Congressman’s strategy.


By any objective standard the portfolio would make any financial superstar green with jealousy. Fueled by his understanding of the inflationary policies unrelentingly pushed by his colleagues in Washington, Ron wisely loaded up on gold and gold mining stocks in the mid to late 1990s when those assets were regarded as the poor stepchildren of Wall Street. Although these assets have significantly beaten the broad markets over the one and three year time frames used in the article, most of their phenomenal gains occurred earlier in the last decade. McTague, however, completely neglects to mention this despite his noting that Ron Paul favored a “buy and hold” strategy that surely gave him exposure to those fat years.


Amazingly, the average 10 year return of the 8 stocks listed in his top 10 holdings (that have 10 year track records – the two other positions have not been around that long) came in at more than 600%! During that time frame the S&P 500 was down 3%. Is there any stock mutual fund that can even touch that performance over a decade? Not likely.


If Barron’s chooses to label this strategy as “stopped clock” investing, so be it. But a more honest assessment would simply call it “successful” investing.


But ignoring his returns is just a minor offense in the article. Its main attack is far more subtle. Using evangelical language, McTague stresses that the Congressman’s investment decisions were informed by a lack of faith in the United States. His portfolio is described as a “super bearish bet against the United States,” implying that the Congressman is unpatriotic. Would it have been more patriotic to foolishly bet on the U.S. economy and to have gone broke like the majority of American investors?


More pernicious still are implications that the Congressman opposed the recent debt ceiling increase because he was looking to goose his investment returns. The article argues that an engineered default (by failing to raise the ceiling) would have caused economic crisis in the U.S., thereby pushing up the price of gold and gold-related investments. Not only is this a low blow but the logic is faulty at its core.


It is much more likely that a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have signaled an end to reckless spending and currency debasement, which would have restored confidence in the U.S. dollar and taken the shine off of gold and gold-related investments. In fact, all of Paul’s efforts in Congress over the decades to champion more responsible monetary and fiscal policy can be seen as detrimental to his own investment portfolio. If anything, his actions have been selfless rather than selfish.


Like most investment professionals, Ron Paul’s opponents likely failed to comprehend the damage the overly expansive monetary and fiscal policy would do to our economy and, as a result, adopted mainstream investment strategies. While Barron’s could try to characterize such approaches as being more patriotic, it certainly cannot describe them as being more successful. Isn’t it about time we elected a president with some substance rather than someone who pantomimes in the preferred manner? Who do we want working in the Oval Office anyway: one of the few who understood how government policy would undermine our economy, and arranged his finances to profit from it, or one of many who had no clue?


The fact that Ron Paul chose to invest as he has is a testament to his intellect and his pragmatism. The fact that he voted the way he did, and tried relentlessly to persuade his colleagues to do likewise, in direct opposition to his personal investment strategy, is a testament to his patriotism. He knew that his appeals would fall on deaf ears and that Washington would destroy the dollar in its quest to “save” the economy. So while he tried to stop the train from running off a cliff, he took the sensible step of buying a parachute. Sounds like a guy I would like to see in the White House.


Too bad no one in the media seems to share these views.