Obama, ISIS, Israel and Oil

     The current Administrations foreign policy has puzzled many experts, because what Obama says and does seem to be two completely different things.  He is repeatedly heard vowing the United States support for Israel, but every action he takes weakens the Jewish nation.  If you look at just one area of Democratic policy, oil, you can see the contradiction and possibly intentional betrayal of our ally Israel

     It is widely known that Muslim nations are desperately dependent on the price of oil, and ISIS uses oil as its main source of revenue to promote terror.  The Saudis are fierce adversaries of ISIS, but fund their own form of terrorism, and have tried to drive down the price of oil to destabilize the Shiites (ISIS and Iran).  US production is now at 9.3 million barrels a day, and when you include inventories on hand and OPEC's stance on production, you had the drastic drop in oil to the low $40's/barrel.  So what was Obama's response to this desperately needed relief to the American poor and middle class?  He vetoed the Keystone oil pipeline, which his own environmental organization said would be less harmful to the environment than his major donor Warren Buffett's trains.  Not only that, but according to CNN Obama has blocked a major source of oil in Alaska, in effect declaring war on Alaska, as oil is their lifeblood. 

     The effects of these decisions have caused oil to pop above $50/barrel.  This helps oil inch nearer Market Watches fiscal break even for Iran of a whopping $131/barrel, who we now know Obama has been in secret talks with to build nuclear power since 2014.  There is a reason Obama has always stated that he wants oil prices high, and it's not because of the environment!  According to a Kuwaiti newspaper, Obama even went as far as telling the Israelis if they attacked Iran the US would shoot down their planes with drones.  

     There is one problem Obama and the Democrats are going to have a hard time avoiding.  The United States has over 414 million barrels of oil in storage and the investors are running out of places to store it.  They're resorting to storing it in salt mines and train cars.  According to one CNBC analyst they will run out of places to store it sometime next week.  This will require producers to sell it right out of the well and drive prices drastically lower.  So be on alert for some sort of international crisis or government intervention to attempt to prop up oil prices.  We can win the war against ISIS and Russia in the short term by driving prices as low as possible.  This will help Israel have time to prepare for the inevitable. 

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

The Founding Fathers and Their Stance on Central Banking

     One of the most controversial institutions of our time is the Federal Reserve and its Constitutionality.  Many argue that there is no place for such a powerful concentration of power anywhere in the Constitution and that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew of its establishment.  Is this in fact true?  Were the champions of liberty adverse to a source of credit, taxation, and means to economic growth that helped England rule an empire upon which 'the sun never sets'?  A look will be taken a the main players in the formation of this nation and what their true feelings were on the matter.
     First we will look at Jefferson.  Jefferson was a champion of the Republican ideal, fearing government and big business.  He was not a combatant in the revolution, so his idea of nationhood was tied to his home of Virginia and states rights.  He saw the rise of the central bank as robbing the average person and was noted as stating that fiat currency was creating nothing from nothing...Thus he was not a supporter of the first Bank of the United States in the 18th century.
     Next we will address my favorite, John Adams, and his opinion on the matter.  John Adams was also a staunch enemy of the new central bank.  He viewed this form of paper currency as a form of swindling the average citizen when not backed by gold or silver.
    Another founding father, James Madison, parted ways with his long time friend Hamilton and became a virtual enemy over the idea of a central bank...falling in line with Jefferson and Adams.
     Alexander Hamilton is the focal point of this paper as he had a vision of a nation and not just states.  He was born in the West Indies and quickly rose in the ranks as George Washingtons aide.  Although Adams hilariously called him, 'The bastard brat of a scotch peddler', Hamilton is widely considered as the father of American finance.  He saw the success of the English, and the Bank of England, and their ability to conquer the globe with their innovative finance system, and wanted to model the American system as such.  Hamilton, not being aligned to any state due to his birth, had a national viewpoint.  As a Wall Street lawyer he often became irritated trying to explain modern finance to what he referred to as 'country bumpkins' (according to Gordon Wood).  Jefferson and Adams didn't understand finance and when Hamilton was made Secretary of the Treasury the Congress ended the 'Way and Means Committee' in favor of Hamiltons knowledge on finance.
     Lastly, we will address George Washington's feelings on the subject.  Washington, along with Hamilton, were the only Founding Fathers to serve in the military and thus had a national, and not a statehood, view of the United States.  When Jefferson offered his view of the unconstitutionality of the central bank Washington asked Hamilton to offer a rebuttal.  In one of the most historic American documents Hamilton argued in favor of a central bank...and Washington agreed and signed the bank into law.
     So in conclusion, we must accept now, as they did then, that there was no consensus on a central bank, and in fact they were quite divided on the subject.

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

Thank you William H McNeill, Gordon Wood, and other historians for their research and effort on the subject.
    

     

UN Resolution 16/18

YOU MUST READ THIS! There was a little known resolution passed by the United Nations in 2011 that was proposed by the OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries). It was agenda/resolution 16/18. Hilary Clinton advised the UN to bring the resolution to the United States so that they could slowly strengthen their muscle to eventually implement it here. The resolution is a direct attack on our religious freedom and 1st Amendment rights. It would make it a world wide crime to say anything disparaging against any religion. Remember this was put forth by the 57 Islamic members of the United Nations in a direct effort to ban any slander of the prophet Mohammed. The Bible referring to the choice of the mark of the beast or having your head cut off seems a little more realistic with the rise of ISIS and the spread of the plague that is Islam!