It didn’t take long for Missouri Democrats to take retribution against Representative Keith English (D-Florissant.) English was the sole democrat vote needed to override Democrat Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of the Tax Cut Bill (SB509.)

Yesterday, the day following English’s veto-busting vote, he received a letter from House Democratic Leader Jake Hummel removing him from his committee assignments. Some insiders claim it was a symbolic gesture because none of English’s committees will be meeting for the remainder of this legislative term.

It is remarkable to observe the differences between democrats and the ‘pubs. English was disciplined by being removed from his committee assignments for a critical vote against the demands of his party. Last September, Senators Dempsey and Richard, reversed their votes on similar bills during the veto session, voting to uphold Nixon’s vetos. Their change of votes, from for-the-bill to against-the-bill, occurred after they accompanied Nixon on a taxpayer-paid junket to Europe. Nothing happened to those two. English, however, lost his committee assignment.

English’s decision to vote for the tax cuts, some $620 million when the cuts are activated, was not a recent occurrence.

English was a special guest at a private reception for Republican lawmakers on Tuesday night. He told members that he wanted to vote in favor of the bill when it was first brought up in the House, but that he was urged by Republican leadership to hold off until the override vote in an attempt to avoid pressure from Democrats, including the governor.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, May 8, 2014

I haven’t examined English’s voting record. I would not be surprised that he has sided with the ‘Pubs in the past.


HB 1439, the Second Amendment Preservation Act, is hung up in committee in the House. It had passed in the House on April 12th on a vote of 114 to 41. It went to the Senate and passed there on a vote of 23 to 8. However, (isn’t there always a ‘however?) the Senate made some changes to the bill. Those changes required a confirming vote in the House. That vote has not yet happened.


There was a provision in the House version that was changed in the Senate; a change some House members demand be reinstated. If the House changes the Senate version, we are in another series of ping-pong from House to Senate and time is running out.

I’m coming to believe we will not pass HB1439. Some insiders who have watched this bill closely from the beginning believe it was designed to fail, that it contained a poison-pill or two.

It is not a good bill. It is a hodge-podge of components that should rightly have been proposed and voted upon individually instead of being collected into a monstrous Congress-style conglomeration of components. One reason why this bill is bad is that if it is passed and is enacted, we, the CCW holders in the state, would lose reciprocity with a number of states…maybe half of those states who currently recognize our permits.

HB1439 lowers the age for a CCW permit from 21 to 19. That would make our CCW permits incompatible with those states whose lowest age is 21 for a CCW holder.

Our neighbor, Kansas, is one whose minimum age for a CCW permit is 21. Think for a moment of the consequences if we lost reciprocity with Kansas! I live within ten miles of the Kansas/Missouri border. I travel to Kansas several times a week. I used to work in Kansas. Imagine not being able to legally carry in Kansas and all the burdens that would ensue!

There are other issues in HB1439 that can cause issues, too. For me, I won’t cry if it fails to pass. Yes, there are provisions in it I would dearly love to see enacted—open carry for one (although I would probably not carry openly myself. I do believe, however, that we should have the option. Kansas will have Open Carry in a few months.)

If HB1439 fails this year, we must learn from our mistakes. I believe it is a strategic mistake to roll all the firearm/CCW/2nd Amendment items into one bill. Yes, it may be a convenience for those sitting in Jeff City, but it has great dangers as we are seeing now with HB1439.

Personally, I’m going to meet with my Senator and Representative and urge them to fight to change how we organize any future bills for firearm and 2nd Amendment rights. One bill for each item. If an issue cannot stand alone on its own virtue, perhaps it shouldn’t be passed? When we have an omnibus-style bill, like we’ve attempted to pass in the last two years and have failed, there will always be one issue or another that will/could stop its passage. Let’s chalk this idea of attempting to pass a large complex bill under the “Lessons Learned” column and vow not to repeat it.


Legislate by De-legislating

Perhaps it is an idea whose time has come. One example, I’ve been told, is from Kentucky. The story goes that Kentucky has a limit on the number of statutes on the books. When that limit is reached, an old statute must be repealed before a new one can be added.

I don’t know if that story is true; I’ve heard it from various sources all my life. I have tried to do due dilligence through a number ofl searches and have not been able to verify the Kentucky story. There are numerous comments from a vast number of sources that propose the same idea. It’s one method to limit government.

A story appeared today about a town in Colorado who has adopted the old Kentucky concept and is, in a fashion, implementing it. They are repealing bad, poorly written laws, one each month for a year. They are removing statutes that punish those who innocently violate these poorly written pieces of legislation. Some of these statutes appear to have been passed specifically to target a selected group or individuals.

Tiny Colorado city busy repealing laws during a ‘Year of Freedom’

Greg Campbell, 6:46 PM 08/12/2013

After a busy state legislative session, Glendale, Colo. — a one square-mile enclave of libertarianism surrounded by the city and county of Denver — has decided to focus on repealing laws rather than passing new ones.

During what Mayor Mike Dunafon has called the “Year of Freedom,” Glendale is revoking one vague, arcane or redundant law a month for 12 months.

The first law stricken from the books on June 4 criminalized the sale, transfer or possession of an “assault weapon,” which was vaguely defined in city code as a gun with a folding stock and a rate of fire greater than “reasonably necessary for legitimate sports, recreation or protection activities.”

Councilman Jeff Allen called it “a very bad law and badly needed to be revoked.”

The latest to land on the chopping block is one making it illtegal for minors to be in the same building as for-profit pool tables.

In an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation, Dunafon said the law — dating from the 1970s — could have been used to ruin the owner of a Glendale restaurant, who also runs an attached nightclub with pool tables. Every time a family with kids under 18 comes in for dinner, she’s committing a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

It’s a situation that could have been exploited, Dunafon said, by hypothetical unscrupulous developers who would rather run her out of business than buy out her lease.

“The basic idea is that all we do is excessively legislate,” Dunafon said. “We don’t ever take laws off the books.”

Continuing to outlaw things like minors near a pool table — Dunafon pointed out that even the YMCA has pool tables — creates a situation where “you have government as its worst,” he said. “It becomes then like a homeowners association. Guy across the street, he doesn’t like the color of your house, so he goes through the code book and makes you change the color of your house.”

Dunafon said too many elected officials forget that their jobs aren’t just about passing new laws.

“De-legislation is also legislation,” he said. “They don’t think in those terms. They just think of the next oppressive thing they’re going to do to the guy down the street. That’s really where the Year of Freedom came from. … Take this stuff off the books, clean it up and restore freedom to the people.”

The column continues on a second page on the website. Isn’t it wonderful, in progressive-tainted Colorado, that some intelligent thought still exists and there are elected officials who still aim to remove impediments in the lives of their constituents.

I challenge all our elected officials from our local city councils to our county, state and federal governments: Examine the books for outmoded, poorly written or malicious statutes that target specific groups and repeal them.

What goes around, comes around

Nothing in this nation, this world, is permanent. Even the mountains change over time. At one time, the Appalachian mountains were the height of the Rockies. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and parts of Nebraska were once under water—an inland sea. Nebraska was once a desert complete with sand dunes. The only thing we can be assured is that change will happen.

Politicians forget this.

Harry Reid is threatening to use the “nuclear” option to insure some liberal activists are confirmed as federal judges and nominees for other federal positions. Once in office, those liberal activists, the new judges, will have a job for life.

The ‘Pub establishment is in a conundrum. Do they oppose Reid and risk him pushing the button or shall they acquiesce, knuckle under to his threats?

McConnell, McCain and other ‘Pubs turned coward and knuckled under. They have agreed to confirm some of those activists saddling the rest of us with more activist bureaucrats ready to destroy the constitution piecemeal.

The ‘Pubs could have defeated Reid and his threats by reminding him of one simple fact. Nothing remains the same.

It’s beginning to look, more and more, that the ‘Pubs will seize the Senate in 2014 or 2016. It’s also likely the ‘Pubs will continue to control the House, perhaps with fewer members, but maybe with a larger majority. It depends on how well the democrat vote fraud network does its job.

All McConnell needed to do was to tell Reid that if he destroys the filibuster, it won’t be available to them when the ‘Pubs next take over the Senate. That could occur in 18 months.

Reid intended the threat to intimidate the ‘Pubs. He was successful. What would he have done if McConnell and the others showed some backbone? I think he would have blustered, made threats and…done nothing. He and the dems in the Senate need that ability to filibuster as much as the ‘Pubs.

From the Investor’s Business Daily

Democrats’ Assault On Filibuster Would Alter Our Republic 

Posted 07/16/2013 06:44 PM ET

Congress: Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, seem intent on pursuing the so-called nuclear option on the Senate’s filibuster rules. Someday, they might even win. They should be careful what they wish for.

Given the low esteem of Congress in the public’s eye and the slow-motion collapse of the Democratic Party’s Big Government agenda, Reid and his allies no doubt believe that changing the Senate’s decades-old filibuster rules is a good idea.

Reid’s filibuster rule-shift would require a mere majority to approve presidential nominees, instead of the current filibuster-proof 60 votes.

This might seem like a mere parliamentary trifle, but it isn’t. Back in 2005, when Reid led the minority Democrats in the Senate and Obama was just another senator, both spoke passionately in favor of the filibuster.

Now, not so much. They’ve changed their minds.

Lest they forget, the Republicans are looking pretty good right now for the 2016 elections.

Only half of the seats up for grabs are held by the GOP. Democrats look vulnerable — as New York Times polling guru and blogger Nate Silver recently noted.

Reid & Co. will no doubt scream bloody murder if, under GOP control of the Senate, their party’s rights in the minority are disrespected or even eliminated.

Unfortunately, getting rid of the filibuster is a long-run project for the progressive wing of the Democrats.

Their ultimate aim is to turn everything into a 51% vote, counting on their power to recruit new Democrats from the millions of illegal immigrants they plan to turn into citizens.

Think about that: That’s why our Constitution was written, and the Bill of Rights added to it. It was to protect the rights of the minority from the political predations of the majority. End that, and our republic dies.

A government run by simple majority is little more than lynch mob rule justified by ballot; a government in which the rights of those not in power are protected is a republic.

Think about that last paragraph above for a moment. If the minority organization has no power within the system, why should they remain within that system? The primary reason the South seceded beginning in 1860, was due to their loss of power in the federal government. The voting blocks of the North and the growing Midwest overpowered the Southern Representatives in the House. The smaller states in the North had a numerical advantage in the Senate as well. When the Southern states saw they were losing the political battle in Congress, they, in their opinion, had no other choice but to secede.

A Senate rule can always be changed. Yes, if/when the ‘Pubs get back in power, the new Senate Majority Leader could reinstate the filibuster. But! Why should he. Harry Reid has given the new leader the power to push anything through the Senate with a simple majority vote. What worked for Reid will now be a tactic for the new ‘Pub leader.

Reid’s machinations are nothing more than strong-arm tactics. If the ‘Pubs had any backbone, McConnell would have told Reid to go pound sand. Unfortunately, we have few ‘Pub Senators with a spinal column. McConnell offered a compromise Monday of this week. Apparently, from late reports today, Reid has rejected that compromise. Or has he? Reid gets one position, one nominee, confirmed, with a promise of “quick action” on the others.

I see no win here for McConnell or for any conservative. Just another day in Foggy Bottom where the Establishment continues to betray our interests.


..or, perhaps, “Bye-bye Boehner.” I’ll take either one. Following the GOP sell-out to the Gang of Eight, John Boehner was on the path to sell-out the country as well—until 80 Representatives gave him a slap upside his head and a reality check.

Boehner had said after the meeting with conservative Representatives the immigration would be presented to the House only if a majority of the GOP agrees. At this moment, that won’t happen.

John Boehner gets a wakeup call.

John Boehner gets a wakeup call.


Boehner tells GOP caucus: I won’t bring an immigration bill to the floor unless a majority of you support it

posted at 1:11 pm on June 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

Not for a moment do I think he’s following the Hastert Rule here on principle, but that’s okay. As long as the House GOP gets a veto, I don’t care what his motive is. Fear works just fine.

“I don’t see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner told reporters following a closed-door House GOP conference meeting…

According to a member who attended the meeting, Boehner argued against the Hastert Rule, but assured his colleagues that he would adhere to it on immigration.

On Monday, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher warned that Boehner should lose his gavel if he moved forward on immigration without majority support, saying it would be a “betrayal” of the party…

Asked by reporters if he agreed with Rohrabacher’s assessment, the Speaker considered the question and replied “maybe.”

GOP Rep. Tom Cotton told Guy Benson last night that he doubts even a small number of Republicans would support a bill like the Gang of Eight’s where amnesty comes before border security. That depends, I suppose, on what he means by “amnesty.” Democrats will insist on probationary legalization first, although they’re willing to let the path to eventual citizenship start later. If Cotton means that security will have to come before even legalization, then immigration reform’s probably dead. A note of caution, though: Boehner also told reporters yesterday that he’s “increasingly concerned” that Democrats would “rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result.” That’s the ol’ “sabotage” theory that’s constantly being used to convince conservative amnesty skeptics that the way to really stick it to Obama and Schumer is to pass reform and deny them a wedge issue next year. It’s the purest nonsense, and the fact that Boehner is pushing it even now shows how eager he is to make something happen here. Promising to follow the Hastert Rule is encouraging, but don’t rule out a last-minute betrayal if he thinks he has 218 with Democratic support.

In fact, per National Journal, Boehner and the House leadership have been leaning on conservatives quietly to play ball:

Republicans on and off the Hill say Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy all want to do something on immigration. Boehner “really wants to get that done but he has to be real quiet about it because if he puts his name on it and his brand on it, like he did with the big (fiscal-cliff) deal, then it’s probably going to die under its own weight,” a former GOP leadership aide said…

“What will have to happen, and is happening in private discussions, is that we have to convince these guys if we’re going to go to conference, we’re not going to cave on our principles,” a senior House GOP aide said. “That is the sales job you have to make to those guys.”…

“This is one of those issues where they may only get 80 to 100 Republicans to vote for it on the House floor, but there won’t be the huge internal backlash,” the former aide said. “And that gives (leadership) some room to maneuver and they have some conservative cover. They have (Sen. Marco) Rubio and (Rep. Raul) Labrador,” who are two key conservative Republicans pushing reform.

Boehner, of course, claims he won’t bring it to the floor in the first place if there are only 80 to 100 Republicans to vote for it. Here’s a scenario that seems plausible to me: What if he rounds up, say, 60-75 Republicans to vote yes, which wouldn’t be close to a majority of the caucus but might impress people as a sizable enough minority that it makes the bill “bipartisan” for rhetorical purposes? And what if, on top of that, the RNC and the House leadership start rolling out lots of prominent Republicans to endorse passing the bill with those 60-75 GOP votes, even if it means violating the Hastert Rule? Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, maybe Jindal, maybe Chris Christie, maybe even Rand Paul — imagine all of them in a full-court media press declaring the bill a triumph, a gift to Republicans, and something that should be passed even if Democrats provide most of the votes. Passionate grassroots righties who follow this stuff day to day would bristle, but all the low-information Republicans out there would probably be impressed by it. The calculus for the party is deciding which is more dangerous to its future, taking the rap for killing immigration reform by having it implode in the House or alienating some conservatives by passing it with most of the Republican caucus opposed. I honestly don’t know which way they’d come down on that. Their eternal trump card, which they’d play again in 2014, is that RINOs are the lesser of two evils vis-a-vis Democrats and therefore most of the righties who declare “I’m staying home!” after amnesty passes will suck it up and vote GOP in the midterms anyway. One thing that would help head off that possibility is having more anti-amnesty conservatives speak up, to sway the low-information voters the other way. Where’s Ted Cruz? Are there no major young Republican governors willing to answer the bell?

By the way, Harry Reid’s suddenly very, very eager to keep immigration reform moving in the Senate. I think Byron York’s right as to why. Keep hope alive.

Let’s hope Boehner and the rest of the House GOP establishment heeds this call.

Friday Follies for April 20, 2012

The Friday Follies is a semi-regular feature at the Court—especially when I don’t have a singular topic, or…when I’m a bit rushed.  I skated yesterday with Mrs. Crucis’ post. Yeah, instead of working, I…, well let’s say I didn’t do anything productive. I futzed all day until it was time to leave for my eldest Grandson’s twelfth birthday.

Today’s topics: Free Speech, Freddie Mae/Freddie Mac, and the Constitution.


Ted Nugent’s remarks at the NRA Annual Meeting last weekend has the liberals all in a tizzy.  Outrageous, they proclaim while ignoring remarks from liberal politicians.

After Nugent’s remarks hit the wires, the liberals and their dem surrogates screamed!  He threatened us!  What BS.  The Secret Service called Nugent in for a few questions and found nothing objectionable.  It was just another liberal ploy to limit OUR free speech.

But what is almost as bad, maybe worse, are the remarks of some NRA members.  They feel that Nugent’s remarks are going to offend liberals or independent fence-sitters. Sebastian and Dave Workman asked the question whether NRA members thought Nugent’s remarks was helpful or harmful.  They received comments from both sides, but in my opinion the tilt was decisively favorable to Nugent.

To my opinion, those who had negative views on Nugent are the NRA’s equivalent of RINOs in the Republican party.


The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell has an interesting question today, “What would happen if Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac went away?”

So what would happen if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were phased out? Would the absence of their ability to offer lower interest loans and smaller down payments impact the cost of homes in America? Anaraki’s analysis shows that it would not. In fact, interest rates and changes in down payment requirements have little influence on housing prices. Instead, fundamentals–such as household assets, personal income, the S&P Index, and the effective tax rate–play substantial roles in shaping home prices. As such, she advises, it’s time for Washington to get out of the business altogether:

The federal government should avoid offering any subsidy in the form of lower interest rates or lower down payments because it adversely affects both the housing market and the economy over the long term. Although such a policy may boost the demand side in the short term, it risks inflating another housing bubble in the medium or long term.

Eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in fact, will help more Americans afford homeownership. Since these institutions increase demand — thereby increasing home prices — it becomes increasingly difficult for lower-income Americans to afford to purchase homes without subsidized interest rates. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are eliminated, interest rates may slightly go up initially, but Anaraki finds that “higher interest rates will lead to lower median home prices, which in turn will increase the ability of low-income groups to purchase a house.” What’s more, competition among housing lenders would increase, leading to lower interest rates in the medium to long term.

The answer would be—nothing too harmful.  Yes, it would be more difficult to buy a home. But those who do would be more able to actually pay for the home instead of having the FedGov subsidize the loan.  When the FedGov gets involved, the buyers lose any incentive to…actively be a homeowner. Instead, the home morphs into just another piece of federal housing.


On the Morning Bell’s side-bar is this item. An on-line analysis of the Constitution—line by line.

How well do you think you know the Constitution? If you’ve ever wanted to learn more about it, now is your chance. Heritage just launched ConstitutionOnline — a comprehensive and authoritative analysis of every single clause in the Constitution. 

Government and the Constitution isn’t taught in most (all?) secondary schools anymore.  When I met Dave Workman at the Second Amendment Foundation booth at the NRA Annual Meeting last week, he was talking to a gentleman about the proposed UN treaty to limit personal ownership of firearms.

This adult man, in his forties I’d guess by his appearance, didn’t know that the Senate was responsible for ratifying international treaties.  Nor did he know that it required a 2/3rds vote of the Senate—a level of difficulty purposely inserted in the Constitution to insure that treaties weren’t approved frivolously. This individual thought Obama could approve the treaty by fiat. Dave Workman and I were both surprised by the ignorance of this apparently well educated man.

It’s time we urged…no, require our educators to return to teaching government and the Constitution.  When I graduated from High School, in Illinois in the 1960s, I was required by the State of Illinois to pass a test on the Illinois and the US Constitutions as a requirement for receiving a diploma.  We now have graduation requirements for public service. Why can we not have a similar requirement to learn and understand our state and federal constitutions?  It seems to me that such a requirement would be more beneficial to the student that working the soup line at the local homeless shelter.                                 


Obamacare went to the Supreme Court last week.  Obama’s Solicitor General and his assistant were…well, let’s say they did not present their side very well. One description I read on the Internet said they were minor leaguers meeting major league All-Stars. In my opinion it was worse than that.

The conventional wisdom of the pundits and many others is that Obamacare is toast and that it will be declared unconstitutional in its entirety.  I’m not so sure, but the outcome of Obamacare isn’t my primary topic today.

Given the premise that Obamacare is unconstitutional, libs say they’ll just expand medicare to include everyone. Medicare has been in force since the 1960s. Everyone knows it’s constitutional and has no requirement for people to sign up. No Individual Mandate so they say.


I’m retired and started drawing Social Security in January of last year. I signed up for Medicare and it became effective for me on the 1st of March.  Much as I dislike Medicare, I didn’t have much choice.

I could have refused Medicare.  Yes, I had that right.  If I did, however, I’d also lose my Social Security.  As much as I hate to admit it, my Social Security income is a significant percentage of my fixed income. More than my other sources combined.

Given that, and I’m not alone, I really didn’t have a choice.  My circumstances, like that of most retired Americans, made choosing Medicare an Individual Mandate.

My preference would have been to continue with my health insurance provided by my former employer. Theoretically, I could if I ponied up payments for that insurance.  The monthly bill, however, was more by several hundred dollars than my pension check.

My former employer assumed I would be receiving medicare when I hit 65 and did not provide equal corporate health insurance to retirees once they reach Medicare age.

This year, my options became much more…limited.  I had a gap of several months when my employer healthcare ended and Medicare began.  My wife, also retired, was in the same boat.  We were able to find some month-to-month catastrophic insurance at a reasonable cost, around $400/mth for the two of us.  It was limited, no prescription plan, pay-as-you-go for office visits and office lab-work.

For some, this would be a viable alternative. For us, it was not optimum. We needed a drug plan for our expensive medications, and for blood work done every quarter. For us, as bad as it is, we’re back to Medicare.

I don’t know how long Medicare will be suitable.  If Obamacare remains in force, two current Medicare add-ons, the Advantage Plan, and Supplemental Insurance, will not be allowed.  I and my wife, in a last minute rush, chose an Advantage plan for this year.  Now that I’ve had a chance to do more investigation, we’ll choose a Supplemental plan next year—if we can.

Given existing Medicare law, do we have an Individual Mandate requiring us to choose Medicare?  For us, “Yes.”

Therefore, if retirees have no choice but to sign up for Medicare, that is an Individual Mandate.  If the Individual Mandate portion of Obamacare is not constitutional is not Medicare unconstitutional as well?

That is a very good question that I have no answer.  While it may require me to pay more out-of-pocket, I like Paul Ryan’s plan to move Medicare to a subsidized private health plan. With competition, and much less federal regulation, I’ll bet healthcare for retirees will become much, much better and much, much cheaper for all.

If conservatives win the White House and Congress next fall, let’s reform Medicare by dissolving it and all the existing regulations with it.  Changes are needed and Paul Ryan’s plan is, for me and my wife, a much better option than Medicare as it now exists.

Inflation strikes!

When Mrs. Crucis and I had been married only a few years, the Viet Nam War ended.  Nixon had been elected and was making good on his promise to end the war.  The peace talks finally bore fruit.  But another fruit, one created by LBJ and the democrats had ripened too.  Inflation and debt.

Most citizens now don’t remember those days. The days of high, over 10%, inflation, interest rates over 20%, and wage and price freeze.  It happened at the end of WW1, again after WW2, and in 1976, with Jimmah Cahtah in the White House, instead of using the wisdom of past presidents to keep their hands off the economy, Jimmah had to meddle.  Home mortgage interest rates skyrocketed to nearly 25%.

The turmoil continued until Reagan was elected.  Within two years, interest rates fell like a rock off a cliff, employment was up and the recovery was well underway.

I scanned the news websites this morning and what do I see.  Jimmah Cahtah redux.  For those of you who don’t know, the Consumer Price Index measures inflation.

The cost of living in the U.S. rose in February by the most in 10 months, reflecting a jump in gasoline that failed to spread to other goods and services.
The consumer-price index climbed 0.4 percent, matching the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, after increasing 0.2 percent the prior month, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. The so-called core measure, which excludes more volatile food and energy costs, climbed 0.1 percent, less than projected.
The biggest jump in gasoline in more than a year accounted for about 80 percent of the increase in prices last month, leaving households with less money to spend on other goods and services.

The biggest jump in gasoline in more than a year accounted for about 80 percent of the increase in prices last month, leaving households with less money to spend on other goods and services.

The government, for decades, has manipulated reports of inflation by dropping data for the most volatile items affected by inflation, fuel and food.

The “core” items mentioned in the article are those that do not include food and fuel.  When you add food and fuel, the CPI doubles, more than double if you delve into the figures.

One reason why the price of oil has spiked is inflation.  The Dollar is still the currency of oil.  When the fed pumps out more dollars, it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of oil, i.e, the price goes up.  Some analysts have declared if the fed hadn’t run off more dollars in their so-called “Quantitative Easing,” the price of oil would be in the $80 range instead of the current price over $100 a barrel.  In short 20% of the increase of oil can be attributed to inflation.

Dollar Inflation the Primary Cause of Rising Oil Prices

I’m under strict instructions, and have been from the beginning, to not talk about the dollar.” -White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino, March 17, 2008 – Link

There is a direct relationship between Dollar value and oil prices. All crude oil purchases worldwide have been conducted exclusively in U.S. Dollars for over thirty-five years. [1] When Dollar value falls via inflation (i.e. the creation of money by the Federal Reserve and other banking mechanisms), oil prices rise. [2] [3] [4]Petrodollar Inflation; it occurred during the 1970′s oil ‘price shock’, and it is occurring right now. [1] This phenomenon could be called
Oil is a critical economic and strategic resource – because every country needs oil to develop and prosper, they also need U.S. Dollars. This has raised the demand, and value, of the Dollar worldwide for several decades. [1]
However, the U.S. Dollar is continuously devalued (inflated) by Federal Reserve and U.S. government monetary policies. [5] Due to recent ‘super-inflation’ of the Dollar, oil producing nations are losing money – or rather, wealth – by selling oil in Dollars. To prevent losses, oil producing nations will sell some or all of their oil in other currencies (Euros, for example). This further devalues the Dollar, since oil buying countries no longer need them to purchase oil.

So when you hear Bernake talk about more “Quantitative Easing,” know, too, your gas at the pump will be going up as well. 

To paraphrase, Obama’s Pastor and mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, “Obama’s chickennnsss!…have come home!…to roost!”