That’s when the first overt attempt at establishing the framework of a One World Government will occur.

The U.N. Climate Change Conference is currently drafting a treaty that, if signed by President Barack Obama and ratified by the U.S. senate, would place the U.S. under an unelected, undemocratic world body that could impose taxes and place limits on industry, transportation, mining and energy production in order to limit carbon emissions.

Global warming zealots from around the world are scheduled to gather in Copenhagen, Denmark to try and suck billions of dollars from the U.S. economy and the economies of other industrialized nations and spread that money around to developing countries, all in the name of saving the planet.

As The Washington Times editorialized on Oct. 27:

“The treaty’s text is not yet finalized but its principles are aimed at regulating all economic activity in the name of climate security, with a side effect that billions of dollars would be transferred from productive countries to the unproductive.
“The control lever is the regulation of carbon emissions, which some purport are causing global warming. The treaty would establish a carbon market Regulatory Agency and “global carbon budget for each country.
“In effect, this would allow the treaty’s governing bodies to limit manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, energy production and anything else that emits carbon—like breathing.”

One of the few people sounding the alarm on this sinister conference is climate expert and foe of global warming alarmist Al Gore, Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

“I read that treaty,” Monckton told the Minnesota Free Market Institute as posted on wattsupwiththat.com, “And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word ‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the other countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘climate debt,’ because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.”

The most recently-released copy of the treaty can be found here. Section 38 mentions government and outlines how it will be framed and financed.

The treaty is still a work in progress even though the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change had planned to have it finalized before the opening of the conference.

Obama first said he wouldn’t attend the conference unless the treaty is finalized. But he began backtracking on that statement last week, saying if his presence could push the deal through he would attend.

Hoping to spur a deal, California Senator Barbara Boxer in early November decided to pass a climate change bill out of committee without Republican support.

Without a clear indication from legislation of how much the U.S. is willing to contribute, the treaty probably won’t be finalized in time. Some other industrialized nations are also balking at the cost and regulations in the treaty, prompting U.N. climate Chief Yvo de Boer to say he didn’t think a legally binding agreement could be passed during the upcoming conference, but he thought one could be reached within a year.

Notice his use of the term, “legally binding.” That’s what they’re after, because once the treaty is signed by the president and ratified by the senate, any hope of America extricating itself from the agreement is gone.

“You can’t resign from the treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties,” Monckton said. “And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.”

And don’t think Obama won’t sign an agreement if it can be finalized. He’s signified he’s all in on the global warming boondoggle. And the Democrats only need to persuade six Republicans to join them to ratify the treaty.

Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (who began working Nov. 5 to help draft compromise Cap and Trade legislation) and Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are likely defectors.

Signing such a treaty and ratifying it into law would be an unconstitutional ceding of U.S. sovereignty to another entity. But what’s one more unconstitutional act in Washington?

There are many people today who know little or nothing about the U.S. Constitution. There are many who know little or nothing of U.S. history, let alone world history. There are many who know little or nothing about central banks, and how they are used to steal our wealth.

There are many who buy into the glossed-over news of the day. There are many who take at face value the words of the elected class, the pundits and main stream media talking heads and printed headlines.

There are many who buy into the party line of their preferred political party. There are many who blindly believe the various political parties have a platform on which they base their actions and agendas and are committed to following through on those policies. There are many who believe the president, senator or representative they elected has in their hearts the best interests of the people they supposedly serve.

There are many who are ignorant.

It’s not all their fault—particularly the younger generations. Their education system has been corrupted by 1960s radicalism—the same radicalism that has infected our government.

Public education has become a sad joke. Its downward slide accelerated with the passage of “No Child Left Behind.” None are left behind because none are allowed to get ahead. The intelligent children are left languishing and fending for themselves while extra resources are devoted to those unable to keep up.

In speaking with a seventh grader recently I asked what he had been studying in his U.S. history class. Well, we spent about 20 minutes on World War II, then several class periods on how the U.S. Olympic Hockey Team beat the Russians in the 1980 Olympics, was the reply.

In class they watched Miracle, the 2004 movie about the team and its victory.

How backward is that? Twenty minutes spent learning about a six-year war spawned from the feckless, irresponsible and dastardly policies of the elected and ruling classes that resulted in the deaths of somewhere between 62 million and 79 million people worldwide. Several class periods on a three-hour hockey game that gave Americans a temporarily thrilling victory over a Cold War foe at the tail end of four moribund years of Jimmy Carterism.

Even the seventh grader was perplexed by his teacher’s decision.

Also glossed over in his class was more than 230 years of American history.

Is it any wonder there is so much ignorance?

Lack of understanding of the founding of our great country has led us to where we are now. Lack of understanding of the origins of the Federal Reserve—and other government attempts to establish a central bank—has led us to where we are now. Lack of understanding of the causes of Great Depression and the misguided (deliberately or unintentionally) attempts to head it off, and how government policies affected the country’s financial health for years has led us to where we are now. Lack of understanding of how a president’s policies can affect a country has led us to where we are now.

Where are we now? In an economic pit of our own making—suffering the aftereffects of a Fed-created bubble that spurred individuals and businesses to borrow and spend like there was no tomorrow. Now there may not be one.

Where are we now? Exacerbating the problem by dumping money out of helicopters in an attempt to stop it—at least that’s what the elected class tells us they’re trying to do. It’s a policy enacted by a supposed conservative, George W. Bush, and perpetuated on a grander scale by Barack Obama.

Where are we now? Watching as the elected class finds more ways to spend more money and steal the wealth of the individuals through massive tax hikes under the guise of healthcare reform.

Where are we now? Waiting for the other shoe to drop in the form of Cap and Trade, which amounts to more taxes and more spending.

Where are we now? Enduring the Obama presidency, which equals Jimmy Carter to the second power.

Sadly, many are ready to go full steam ahead with such policies.

Never mind that the elected class isn’t even considering whether such things are Constitutional. Forcing Americans to buy a product—health insurance—is okay with the elected class.

Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer said it’s permissible under the general welfare clause of the Constitution. Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told the press the president wasn’t even considering whether it was constitutional and no one had brought it up.

Don’t think the elected class is ignorant. They’re not. They know exactly what they’re doing—stealing your wealth and your liberty.

Never mind whether it’s Constitutional, says the elected class. We know what’s best for you.

Never mind whether it’s Constitutional, it’s free, say the ignorant.

Our healthcare system is in terrible shape, we need to have competition, says the elected class. Government can do it better than the free market can.

Yeah. With the compassion of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the efficiency of the Post Office.

Where are we now… really? Many are sitting in front of the television watching Simon Cowell or anxiously awaiting the result of who is getting kicked off the island next or watching some stars in a dance contest.

Some are waking up. The Tea Parties demonstrate that.

But too many are ignorant. And apparently they’re ready to accept anything as long as it’s “free.”

After all: ignorance is bliss and free is good.

His very own Nobel Peace Prize. Imagine that!

And what has our president done to deserve this lofty honor? Why, in the words of an infamous “Saturday Night Live” sketch, nothing, absolutely nothing. I’ll come back to that hilarious skit in a moment. But first, let’s look a little closer at the curious timing of Obama’s award.

Did you know that the Nobel Committee’s own regulations require that all nominations be postmarked by Feb. 1? This means that—if the rules were followed—Barack Obama was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize a mere 12 days after he was sworn into office.

Twelve days in office and he’s already being considered for a Nobel Peace Prize? Give me a break! Does anyone anywhere really believe that this is how it actually happened?

Let me suggest something that strikes me as incredibly obvious: The Nobel Committee broke its own rules to give Obama the award. Can’t you imagine a committee meeting with someone shouting the Norwegian equivalent of “Rules? Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules.”

And of course it’s true. When it comes to honoring one of their own, and advancing the cause of their dubious socialist schemes, the elitists of the international left don’t need no stinkin’ rules. They can do whatever they want. That’s why they hate the very idea of being bound down by the chains of a constitution. These power-hungry sycophants always and everywhere love monopolies and dictatorships, so long as it’s one of their own who is in charge. That’s why they are so enraptured with the United Nations.

But I digress. The plain and simple fact is that this year’s selection was rigged. This is far from the first time that the noble idea of a “peace prize” was prostituted to serve the ignoble ambitions of the left.

Do you remember in 1994, when the Nobel Committee gave the honor to a thief and murderer named Yasser Arafat? It’s true that Arafat shared the award with the then-prime minister and foreign minister of Israel. But still, giving a “peace” prize to the father of modern terrorism? Arafat gloated about using the most heinous murder of innocent civilians to advance his aims.

Oh, by the way, he also stole tens of millions of dollars from the very Palestinians he supposedly led to finance a life of luxury on the French Riviera and various world capitals. In a sane world, he would have been tried for murder and executed.

Instead, he was the most frequent visitor to Bill Clinton’s White House among all so-called world leaders. What a travesty.

If that wasn’t enough to make you rush to the nearest vomitorium, how about the winners in 1973? In case you’ve forgotten, that’s when Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam’s Lu Duc Tho shared the award for negotiating the Vietnam peace accords. If you remember that Communists describe “peace” as “when all opposition has been eliminated,” then you’ll have to admit the committee got it right: Kissinger and gang made sure all opposition to a communist takeover of South Vietnam got slaughtered. Way to go, Mr. Secretary.

But you don’t have to be a mass murderer, or even open the door to it, to be honored by the Nobel Committee. Slavish devotion to the left’s latest cause is often enough. How else would you explain the selection two years ago of former Vice President Al Gore? Even if you bought into all the skewed science and deliberate deceptions in “An Inconvenient Truth,” can you really contend with a straight face that he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize?

Well, okay, I’ll grant you. He has done more to earn it than our Teleprompter-in-Chief. But that’s not saying much.

By an extraordinary coincidence, two days before the award was announced, “Saturday Night Live” opened its Oct. 3 show with a skit skewering Barack Obama for accomplishing “nothing, absolutely nothing” since Inauguration Day.

In case you missed it, the sketch featured actor Fred Armisen portraying the president and delivering a very sober speech to the American public. Here’s just part of that delicious put-down:

“There are those on the right who are angry. They think that I’m turning this great country into something that resembles the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. But that’s just not the case. When you look at my record, it’s very clear what I’ve done so far—and that is nothing. Nada. Almost one year and nothing to show for it.”

As he spoke, a checklist of promises appeared on the screen—global warming, immigration reform, gays in the military, limits on executive power, torture prosecutions, closing Guantanamo Bay, withdrawing from Iraq, healthcare reform, and so on. Armisen, as Obama, admitted very honestly how little his administration had accomplished.

“Remember,” he said. “I can do whatever I want. I have a majority in both houses of Congress. I could make it mandatory for all gays to marry, and require all cars to run on marijuana. But do I? NO!”

He then closed with this wonderful admission: “So looking at this list, I’m seeing two big accomplishments: JACK and SQUAT!”

You’ve got to admit, sometimes the liberals get it right.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

Although in failing health, Saint-Gaudens accepted what would become his last challenge. He produced a stunning design that many consider to be the most beautiful coin ever produced… the $20 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle. Sadly, Saint-Gaudens died without ever seeing his magnificent coin enter circulation.

The Saint-Gaudens $20 Double Eagle was minted from 1907 to 1933. The last gold coin struck by the U.S. Mint for regular issue, it remains a proud symbol of the emerging greatness of the United States in the early part of the 20th Century. In 1933, during the height of the Depression, a different Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, outlawed private ownership of gold by Americans. Production of new gold coins was halted and gold coins in circulation were confiscated. Double Eagles were melted down and added to the Treasury’s horde of gold. The few that weren’t seized are now highly prized collectibles.

In 1975, U.S. citizens were again permitted to own gold. At the time the bullion coin of choice was the South African Krugerrand. For many reasons our government wanted to issue its own gold coin. A representative of the U.S. Mint came to my office in Washington, DC and purchased a variety of gold coins. I was the executive vice president of Deak-Perera then, a company that specialized in foreign currencies, including gold and silver coins. They purchased gold coins minted in South Africa, Austria, and yes, even Mexico.

A few years later the U.S. Mint announced the production of a new American coin—the gold Eagle. It was available in four denominations: 1-oz, ½-oz, ¼-oz, and 1/10-oz of gold. The obverse featured a redesign of the classic Augustus Saint-Gaudens design.

I’m proud to say that during the first year of issue, 1986, my new company, Asset Strategies International, helped a major precious-metals company pre-sell more of these new American gold coins than any other company in the U.S. One day alone we shipped 600 registered packages throughout the country. Over the course of a year literally thousands of gold coins passed through our offices. The Eagle had definitely landed!

In 1986, the U.S. Mint added a silver dollar to its offerings. The silver Eagle contains 1 ounce of silver and has a face value of $1. The mint wisely chose to use Adolph A. Weinman’s “Walking Liberty” design on the obverse of the coin. To say it is classically beautiful is an understatement. It is a joy to hold in your hand—and an even bigger delight to drop on your desk where it makes that unique “silver on wood” clink that Americans haven’t heard in years.

There is much that our government has done and wants to do with which we could quarrel. But no one can deny that it makes the most beautiful modern coinage in the world. And you can own some for a small premium over the spot price of their gold and silver content!

The best way to purchase these gorgeous coins is through a reputable coin dealer. You’ll find a list of recommended dealers on the website for the U.S. Mint, www.usmint.gov. I’m proud to note that ASI has been included there for many years.

Because demand can rise and fall, so can premiums. Get two or three different quotes before you buy. (And never, never give your business to mass marketers, who always have the highest premiums around. How do you think they can afford all that advertising?)

With gold hovering around $1,000 an ounce, the gold American Eagle is admittedly expensive. Remember, you can purchase versions as small as 1/10th ounce. But note: the smaller the coin, the higher the premium.

An even better investment, in my opinion, is the silver American Eagle. You can purchase this classic American beauty for less than $20 each. As the price of silver continues to climb (something I think is all but inevitable) your coins could turn out to be a superb investment.

When I was growing up, on every birthday, my parents gave me a bright, shiny silver dollar. I still have those coins, mostly for sentimental reasons. But they’ve also soared in value. If you’d like your children to know what “real money” used to look like, you might consider doing the same. After all, the only thing that’s still good as gold is gold… or maybe silver.

Written by inventor, architect, engineer, geometrician, cartographer and philosopher R. Buckminster Fuller in 1981, Grunch of Giants postulates the theory that the United States industrial complex—corporations—are controlling world events for their own ends. Even politicians are controlled by Grunch, a vast invisible empire that includes airwaves and satellites, factories and research laboratories and large cities.

Nobody knows who runs Grunch, but it controls all the world’s banks and does just what its lawyers tell it to do. All decisions for Grunch are made in back rooms, with the deciding factors being business and money.

According to Fuller, every day 75,000 humans around the world die of starvation and its side effects, even though more than enough food is produced to support all the people on earth. Grunch did not cause this, Fuller says, but Grunch could easily end it if it so chose.

Grunch, Fuller writes, did not invent the universe. In fact, it did not invent anything. It monopolizes know-where and know-how but is devoid of know-why. It is preoccupied with absolute selfishness and its guaranteed gratifications. It is as blind as its Swiss banks are mute.

In order to understand how the Grunch works, Fuller says you must first study their history and development. In beginning his explanation, Fuller quotes one of his friends, who he called a giant and described as a member of the Morgan family (presumably the J.P. Morgan banker family). “Bucky, I’m very fond of you, so I am sorry to have to tell you that you will never be a success. You go around explaining in simple terms that which people have not been comprehending, when the first law of success is, ‘Never make things simple when you can make them complicated.’”

One of the first things Fuller had to do was make a decision: Did he want to try to make money, or make sense, as the two things are mutually exclusive. So Fuller decided to make sense and he used his books to explain how the world works.

This book is not light reading. In fact, it is often difficult to follow and at times quite scientific in its language. Nor is it for the closed-minded, because it challenges conventional thinking and forces the reader to look at the world from a different paradigm.

But if you are willing to consider that things aren’t as they seem, and in fact are completely different from what all are taught, then this book makes a good addition to your library.

Mismanagement in Washington is punishing the dollar. Continued incompetence puts all dollar-backed assets at risk.

Meanwhile, gold prices are once again back over $1,000 per ounce. Yet for gold to reach its inflation adjusted 1980 price it would have to trade at $2,500 per ounce. Impossible you say? Not given the current crisis in leadership.

On Sept. 8, at Wakefield High School in Virginia, President Obama gave a speech to students across the country about the importance of their education, and their responsibility as American students to work hard.

Certainly hard work is needed. Two weeks before Obama spoke it was announced that high school students’ performance on last year’s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) college-entrance exam fell yet again.

Average scores for the class of 2009 in reading dropped to 501 from 502, in writing to 493 from 494, while math managed to hold steady at 515. The combined scores are the lowest this decade. Furthermore, these SAT scores follow more than 25 years of trying to improve U.S. education.

"This is a nearly unrelenting tale of woe and disappointment," said Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. "If there’s any good news here, I can’t find it."

In fact the news is dismal. SAT scores have been in an overall decline for almost 40 years. Meanwhile a new wave of nations are producing another generation of smart kids with a global economy itching to buy up their services.

Hopefully the President has not inspired another generation of wanna-be lawyers. America has more than enough of them. In 2007 the American Bar Association (ABA) counted 1,143,358 in all. That is one lawyer for every 265 people, twice the ratio that Germany has and five times as many as France.

It is interesting to note that last year plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations was put on hold by its own inspectors because of a shortage of skilled engineers.

That’s bad news for the lawyers because no new nuclear plants mean no new litigation against nuclear plant designers and owners. Not that there isn’t plenty of work to keep lawyers busy.

The U.S. tort system cost more than $250 billion in 2007. That is up from less than $43 billion in 1980.

In total, tort costs translate to about $850 per man, woman and child. And get this, since 1950 growth in tort costs has exceeded gross domestic product (GDP) growth by an average of 2 percentage points. Even during recessions, Americans spend more in legal costs. It’s too bad you can’t buy shares in the ABA.

This is not to suggest that we are not heavily vested in lawyers. Some of the very “best” of them are running our nation. Today 46 percent of our government branches are in the hands of lawyers. That includes, of course, the President and the First Lady.

A founder of the Constitution, James Madison, understood that the checking of each branch by the other made for a less effective government. Madison wrote that the sacrifice was worth it to prevent tyranny by a government “in the same hands.”

“No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that . . . the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (Federalist No. 47)*

Whether the federal government is tyrannical can be debated, but you don’t need an MBA to see that it is damned inefficient. Last month the Obama Administration announced its estimate for the budget deficit at $1.58 trillion. That is a trillion dollars larger than last year’s deficit and represents the largest percentage share of GDP in more than 60 years.

Why would we expect anything less? If you have ever been on the “clock” with a lawyer you probably realize how much it costs and how little actually gets accomplished.

Now before I get a rash of comments from lawyers, let me say that I am not alone in my criticism. Way back in the February 1987 Ruff Times, Robert Ringer wrote: “I abhor overgeneralizations. Fairness compels me to point out that only 97 percent of the attorneys in the U.S. are lazy, incompetent, negligent and greedy—yet they give the entire profession a bad name.”

The truth is our government is rife with lawyers and they have been doing a rotten job. An even more alarming truth is that they hold our future and our finances in their hands.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke mans the printing press. Despite the recession, new money is pouring into the economy. Since 2000, M2 money supply has more than doubled, rising from $4 trillion to $9.5 trillion.

One of Bernanke’s first speeches was entitled “Deflation: Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here.” On that front he is doing one heck of a job.

What people need to fear from the firm of Barack & Bernanke is the unprecedented amount of new money coming on-stream. The creation of all this cash out of thin air will inevitably be inflationary. That impacts the purchasing power of every dollar instrument you own.

You can protect yourself from dollar inflation by owning gold. I recommend you put at least 10 percent of your investment assets in physical gold. I like 1-ounce U.S. American Eagle coins as well as 1-ounce Canadian Maple Leaf and South African Krugerrand coins.

Call your local coin dealer or if you need one, call Asset Strategies International in Rockville, Md., 800-831-0007 or 301-881-8600 or go to www.assetstrategies.com

Yours for real wealth and good health,

John Myers
Myers’ Energy and Gold Report

PS. I will agree with the President that our kids have to get serious about their education. Perhaps they should read Shakespeare. In King Henry VI he wrote: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers."

*Footnote: Federalist No. 47 is the 47th paper from the Federalist Papers. Written by Madison, it was published in 1788 under the pseudonym Publius.

Legislators from both sides of the aisle were quick to jump all over the Republican congressman from South Carolina for his rudeness. Katon Dawson, the former head of the Republican Party in South Carolina, opined, “If Joe’s mother or father were alive, they’d take him to the woodshed and whip him for bad manners.”

Before the night was out, Wilson had been pressured to call the White House to apologize. Not content that Rep. Wilson apologized directly to the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her cronies demanded he also apologize on the House floor. When he refused, they voted 240-179 to "disapprove" his actions. Ah well, at least it distracted them from spending a few billion more of your tax dollars for a day or two.

By the end of the day last Thursday, Rob Miller, his opponent in last year’s election, reported that he had received some $400,000 in contributions from 11,000 donors to help him defeat Wilson next time around. Wilson promptly announced that he too had received a big chunk of moola from patriots who want him to stay in Washington. Looks like next year’s election in that district will be mighty interesting.

Lost in all of the hullabaloo were two things worth mentioning: First, Wilson’s outburst paled in comparison to the treatment President George W. Bush received on numerous occasions from his Democrat opponents. There were times during George W.’s State of the Union speech in 2005 when there were so many jeers, cat-calls, mutterings and murmurings it was difficult to hear what he was saying. Anyone remember the liberal media expressing its outrage then?

But my second point is far more important: For all of his impoliteness, Wilson was telling the truth. Obama wasn’t.

Wilson’s outburst was in response to the president’s claim that nothing in the Democrats’ proposals would lead to federal funding of healthcare for illegal immigrants. Wilson knows something most Americans don’t: Liberals in Congress have defeated every single attempt by Republicans to put such provisions into law. Of more than 20 such amendments that were introduced in the past year, not a single one has been allowed out of committee.

No wonder Wilson was so upset. He knows what’s really been going on behind those closed committee doors. He knows Obama was playing fast and loose with the truth. And so did everyone else in the House chamber that night.

I wasn’t surprised by all the blatant falsehoods in Obama’s speech. For me, the tone was set in the first five minutes, when the president told the assembled lawmakers, “I am not the first president to take up this cause. But I am determined to be the last.”

That may have been great rhetoric. The assembled Democrats obviously thought so, because they gave the president an enthusiastic standing ovation.

Yes, it might have sounded good. But it wasn’t the truth. And everyone listening to the president knew it.

Is there anyone anywhere who honestly believes that the government’s role in providing healthcare for the public will no longer be an issue when President Obama leaves office? That no one on either side of the aisle—Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative—will ever introduce new legislation to “improve” whatever system Congress agrees to during Obama’s tenure?

Give me a break. This debate will continue until long after your great-grandchildren have collected their last Social Security check. Obama knows that. So does every member of the House and Senate who sat through his speech that night. And to pretend otherwise is nothing short of political duplicity. (That’s a more polite way of saying, “He lies!”)

Another obvious fantasy in the president’s address was his claim, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future—period.”

Let me see if I’ve got this right. Under ObamaCare, some 40 million Americans who currently do not have health insurance will suddenly get coverage … and it won’t cost taxpayers a dime? Does anyone believe this?

I was amused to hear the president say that one reason his plan would be more efficient is that the government-run program, unlike private insurance, wouldn’t have to make a profit. Nor would it have to pay all those expensive executive salaries.

Has anyone anywhere found one example of a government-run program that is more efficient than private enterprise? Anyone? Anyone?

It’s hard for me to believe that any adult American could be so gullible as to believe this. What I do believe is that a majority of Congress will pretend to believe it, knowing that a bunch of their constituents want it to be true. (Or, far more likely, don’t care if it is or not, so long as they get all those “free” benefits they’ve been promised.)

Another misleading remark in Obama’s address was his claim that “no federal funds will be used to fund abortions.” Did you notice that not a single pro-abortion legislator (who as a group are probably the most outspoken extremists in Congress) said anything in opposition to this part of Obama’s speech?

That’s because they know the fix is in. Despite repeated efforts by pro-life legislators, not a single proposal to put this into law has been approved in Washington. No matter what Obama says now, the pro-abortion crowd is confident that whatever legislation is finally approved, it will include a provision requiring that so-called “public option” health insurance covers abortions.

Finally, let me say a few words about the part of Obama’s speech I found the most offensive. That was his “my way or the highway” attitude. He accused talk radio hosts, cable news and conservative leaders of deliberately spreading falsehoods. He wants you to believe that everyone who opposes his plan to nationalize medical care is lying.

There was not a word of criticism for the attack dogs on the left, such as House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who called opponents of these plans “un-American.” Or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who labeled those who disagree with him as “evil mongers.”

After denouncing virtually everyone who has disagreed with him, the president then said, “Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together.” The amazing thing to me is that no one laughed out loud at the hypocrisy of such a statement.

As every conservative on Capitol Hill knows, there has been absolutely no effort to include them in this debate. Their ideas are not welcome—and neither are they.

To say that conservatives and libertarians have never offered any constructive suggestions about healthcare is a flat-out lie. Anyone who cares can check out proposals on “How to Insure Every American” by Republican Representatives John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra. Or the very sensible ideas for health-care reform by John Mackey, the founder and CEO of Whole Foods. Or the detailed analyses and proposals from the Cato Institute, Reason magazine, the Heritage Foundation and a dozen others.

Republicans haven’t been included in negotiations on Capitol Hill for months. House Speaker Pelosi has shown nothing but disdain for those who disagree with her. Nor is it any different at the White House, where conservatives have been locked out of discussions on healthcare since early spring.

While he says he wants bipartisanship, Obama means he wants opponents to sit down, shut up and go along with his proposals. He seems determined to use the Democrat majority he enjoys in the House and the Senate to ram through the most drastic reorganization of healthcare this country has ever seen.

He doesn’t want to debate, he wants to dictate. We’re about to find out if a majority in Congress will let him.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

One of my SFS classmates from Canada told a memorable story about how his grandfather was constantly troubled about the possibility that “the Yanks were coming.” This elder Canadian, steeped in colonial history, was convinced that someday those ornery Americans would storm north across the border and invade again.

Well, in truth, a small number of Americans have headed north across that 5,525-mile long United States-Canadian border, famously styled as “the longest undefended border in the world.”

The objective of this migration is not to conquer, but to become Canadian citizens—and thereby reduce the American migrant’s U.S. taxes to zero.

Canada is not an offshore tax haven. Commonwealth and provincial taxes are relatively high. Except in specific programs designed to entice new immigrants to come to Canada (more on that below), there are few tax breaks for foreigners. However, little-known Canadian trust and tax laws, when properly employed, offer Americans a legal way to forever end the obligation to pay U.S. taxes—by becoming Canadians.

Expatriation

This unusual tax freedom is accomplished by a process known as “expatriation” in which a U.S. person voluntarily ends U.S. citizenship. That may seem extreme, but it can be done legally and consistent with U.S. and Canadian law—with the right expert professional legal and tax advisors.

American tax laws require “U.S. persons”—citizens or resident aliens—to pay income taxes on earnings from any source anywhere in the world no matter where they live. Unlike most other countries with “territorial” tax systems, a U.S. person can’t escape taxes by moving offshore.

By contrast, most other countries tax only the people who actually live within their borders. Canada for example, does impose taxes on the worldwide income of residents. But if a Canadian moves out of Canada and establishes a new residence in another country, the legal duty to pay Canadian taxes ends with few exceptions. This feature of Canadian tax law is an important part of our tax-saving expatriation plan.

Tax-Free New Residents

However tough taxes may be for the average Canadian, wealthy immigrants can take advantage of tax-free loopholes available only to them. Here are some of the options for high net worth immigrants who come to Canada:

1) A qualified immigrant accepted for eventual Canadian citizenship is eligible for a complete personal income tax moratorium for the first five calendar years of residence in Canada. They pay no taxes if the source of their income is a previously existing offshore, non-Canadian trust, (known as an “immigrant trust”) or an offshore corporation.

Because the high establishment and administrative costs of such a trust, it generally is best suited for immigrants who have at least $1 million or more in assets that can be placed in the offshore immigrant trust.

2) After living five years tax-free in Canada as a new citizen, the new Canadian can move his or her residence (and tax domicile) to another country, preferably a tax haven, and afterwards pay taxes only on income earned or paid from within Canada. They pay no taxes on their worldwide income. (There is a Canadian “departure” tax to be paid after filing a notice of intent to live abroad. There is no way of determining the exact rate of this tax since various types of property are taxed at differing rates.)

3) Canadian citizens and resident aliens employed by certain “international financial centers” are forgiven 50 percent of all income taxes.

4) Canada has abolished all national death (estate) taxes (but the provinces do have such taxes).

Investors Welcome

Canadian law favors a specific class of preferred immigrants including investors, entrepreneurs, the self-employed and those who will add to the “cultural and artistic life” of the nation. With minor variations in each of the provinces, investor immigrants generally must have a net worth in excess of C$500,000 (US$443,000) and be willing to invest at least C$250,000 (US$222,000) in a Canadian business for a minimum three- to five-year period. Purchase of a residence usually does not qualify as an investment, although it may if you work from home.

American Tax Burden

While most foreigners can relocate to a tax haven as a legal way to avoid home country income taxes, U.S. persons cannot. The only way a U.S. person can escape taxes is to end U.S. citizenship and residency—but only after acquiring a new citizenship from another country, another important step in the expatriation process. (No one wants to be the man or woman without a country!)

Let me assure doubters that, yes, this is legal. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Americans’ right to acquire another citizenship, to end their U.S. citizenship and to expatriate.

Likely Candidates

Q: Which Americans should consider expatriation?

A: Those concerned with high taxes. Without good estate planning, U.S. death taxes can take up to 55 percent of your assets from your heirs when you pass away—and that final tax insult comes after a working lifetime of paying up to 40 percent of your earnings in federal income taxes every year. Add in state and local income and sales taxes and you stand to lose in taxes well over half your earnings during your lifetime—and your heirs lose another half of what’s left at death.

The potential emigrant from America eventually must surrender U.S. citizenship in order to end U.S. tax obligations. But be aware of the new (2008) U.S. “exit tax” now in effect. If you qualify as what the law calls a “covered person” the exit tax may outweigh any benefit to be gained by immigration to Canada.

A Potential Savings of Millions of Dollars

There you have it. It may seem a difficult road to travel, but becoming a Canadian citizen investor can save a U.S. citizen millions of dollars that would otherwise go directly to the Internal Revenue Service.

Yes, these savings are predicated on major changes—including surrender of your U.S. citizenship. You must move yourself, your family and your business to Canada and possibly to another country later on. Despite these drawbacks, the true bottom line measured in dollar savings can be enormous.

–By Robert E. Bauman JD

Do you remember when you learned airliners had been used as weapons of mass destruction against America?

Sure you do. That memory is etched into your brain as permanently as if it had been carved into granite, just like other history-changing events: the assassination of JFK, the first moon landing, the Challenger explosion, the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. It’s tattooed there, with permanent ink.

And so is the feeling you had in the pit of your stomach. Anguish over thousands of lost souls—fellow Americans, mostly, but it didn’t matter where they were from. You knew they were gone… you didn’t know how many but you knew it must be thousands… and you were frightened because you didn’t know if more attacks were coming or when or where they would be.

There was anger, too. Anger that enough evil existed in the world to do such a thing. More anger that some were applauding it, as spontaneous celebrations broke out throughout the Middle East.

There was a resolve that began to form as well. A resolve to do whatever you could to help those affected. It took many forms, like donating blood or sending money to support rescue organizations like the American Red Cross.

There was also the beginning of a resolve to make sure those responsible were punished. That resolve was strengthened by the words of President George W. Bush when he stood in the rubble with his arm around a firefighter and spoke into that megaphone, “I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

And they did. Less than a month later, on Oct. 7, bombs began falling on Afghanistan.

A lot has transpired since then, not all of it good.

There’s the American Patriot Act, passed hurriedly under the guise of helping to find terrorists but now being used more and more on Americans. There’s the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a branch of the Treasury Department, it is the government’s enormous financial data collection arm. It pulls in personal and information from the IRS, FBI, DEA and Secret Service, as well as customs and the postal inspection agency.

According to some experts, FinCEN taps into the National Security Council and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. FinCEN even gets information from the likes of your friendly banker.

There are Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) on anyone who engages in any “suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.” This includes such things as large money transfers or other activity deemed suspicious by a banker. The information is sent to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), among other places.

There has been the suspension of Habeas Corpus for American citizens. Remember Jose Padilla? He’s the accused “dirty bomb” suspect arrested as he stepped off an airliner at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago in May 2002. He then spent three and half years in a military brig in South Carolina, plus two more in a federal prison before his trial in January 2008.

During his military confinement he was subjected to prolonged isolation and intensive interrogations in conditions a judge called harsh. Still, no evidence of a dirty bomb plot was ever uncovered and Padilla’s conviction was for conspiring to help Islamic jihadist fighters abroad.

There are more onerous regulations on travel and invasive searches of airline passengers. Metal detectors now must be passed through to get into government buildings.

Eight years later our troops are still in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. Osama bin Laden has not been found—I think he’s been dead a long time—and al Qaeda are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The war there is getting deadlier for U.S. troops by the day.

Pakistan, which signed on as an ally, has seen its government change hands and Islamo-fascist terrorists are fighting a war there in an effort to get there hands on the country’s nuclear weapons.

American troops remain in Iraq as well, where we fight a proxy war with Iran.

But we’re no longer fighting a war on terror. It’s an overseas contingency operation, and what used to be called terrorist attacks are now man-caused disasters.

No, the terrorists are now those who oppose government overreach. As reported on The Heritage Foundation website, Obama’s campaign organization, Organizing for America, sent out notice to its grassroots supporters to use today, Sept. 11, to wage a phone campaign calling U.S. Senators to pass healthcare reform. The Obama website—since scrubbed—said, “All 50 states are coordinating this—as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process…” A screenshot of the page and The Heritage Foundation’s story can be viewed here.

Meanwhile, terrorists captured on the battlefield where they were shooting at American and coalition soldiers and setting improvised explosive devices (IED) are going to be removed from the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and brought to the U.S., if the president and attorney general have their way.

They’re not going to be brought to the states just to stand trial. They’re going to be incarcerated here as well.

Not to worry, says Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the worst of them will not be released on American soil. No, they’ll remain in prison where they can proselytize the American prison population and create real domestic terrorists.

As Americans awoke on that fateful morning eight years ago and began going about the business of their ordinary, workaday lives we were all blissfully ignorant of the catastrophe about to be hoisted upon America.

There were still big arguments over the Supreme Court ruling nine months earlier that cleared the way for a Bush presidency, and those on the left were concerned about the direction country would go politically. They were calling him fascist and Nazi.

Now it’s eight years later. A new president is being called Nazi, socialist and Marxist. And those on the right are worried about the direction the country is going politically.

It’s been eight years. The country is as divided now as it was at 8:45 a.m. that fateful day and the only thing that has progressed is the march against American privacy and freedom.

For the first time since last November, a majority of Americans say they don’t like his policies. Many of them are concerned that he is going to bankrupt the country. Can you believe it? Where would they get such a crazy idea?

Before I get into the specific policy mistakes—and the Obama Administration has made a ton of them—let’s take a brief look at the numbers. The Angry Left likes to take all of the credit for Obama’s election (and thus demands that he implement every far-left scheme they can propose). But the truth is vastly different.

Last November, Barack Obama won the election with 53 million votes. John McCain finished second with 46 million votes. That’s a margin of 7 million.

Who were those voters? Almost without exception, they came from the middle of the political spectrum. They are neither Republicans or Democrats. They describe themselves as independents.

And here’s the amazing thing: Some 10 million of them now say they don’t like what President Obama is doing.

At the beginning of his term, President Obama enjoyed the support of more than 80 percent of the people who described themselves as independents. Today that number has fallen to under 50 percent. That’s an amazing reversal in just a few months.

How did Obama do it? Let me count just a few of the ways.

1. A stimulus program that didn’t stimulate. While the street cleaners in Washington were still cleaning up the confetti from the inauguration, the Democrats rammed through an $800-billion stimulus bill. The measure was supposed to solve our employment crisis, bail out state and local governments, get the economy moving again and make flowers grow in the desert.

Okay, I’m kidding about the last one. But you remember all the extravagant promises this massive spending bill was supposed to achieve. Instead, unemployment has continued to climb, California was forced to issue IOUs, the housing crisis took a turn for the worse and the economy barely limps along. To paraphrase an old country song, Congress got the gold mine (the bill had so much pork it squealed) while the taxpayers got the shaft.

2. Next, Obama set out to nationalize just about everything. The Feds took $100 billion or so to bail out their buddies on Wall Street. The insurance industry was next, with $80 billion going to prop up just one company, American International Group (aka AIG). Then the national banks were coerced into taking loads of federal moola—and all the “oversight” that would mean. The car companies were the next takeover target, as Uncle Sam became the new boss at Chrysler and General Motors.

And now the Obama Administration wants to make health care in this country more “fair” and “efficient.” I’ll have more to say about the absolute ludicrousness of such proposals at some other time. For now, let me just note that a whole lot of Americans have gotten so fed up, they’re saying “no more!”

3. Massive new spending, and exploding deficits, as far into the future as we can see. What will all of this incredible largesse cost? In less than six months the Obama Administration has racked up the biggest deficit this country has ever witnessed. And the red ink will continue to pour over us for as far into the future as we can see.

The administration claims that its cost over-runs will “only” amount to a trillion dollars a year for the next 10 years or so. They base this number on incredibly optimistic estimates of how much their programs will cost. And even more generous guesses of how much tax revenue they can take from us.

Of course, anyone who believes these projections won’t go a whole lot higher probably also believes in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Every sensible American knows that spending will get worse, taxes will get higher—and the deficits will multiply faster than maggots in a dumpster.

Along with all of these big issues, there have been dozens of smaller ones that have damaged Obama’s poise and credibility. How stupid was it for him to call the police in Cambridge, Mass., stupid? I was shocked and shamed to see the President of the United States use his bully platform to side with a black professor who lost his cool. So were a lot of other Americans, both black and white. Obama responded like a knee-jerk racist.

Then there was his 180-degree turnabout regarding the interrogation of terrorists. At first Obama promised there would be no prosecution of the CIA agents who, in the words of a Washington Times editorial, “produced life-saving intelligence that disrupted numerous terrorist plots.” Now our President has torn up that pledge. In an effort to placate the extremists on his left he has authorized Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. Can anyone doubt that prosecutions will be far behind?

I won’t even get into all of Obama’s foreign-policy blunders. Everywhere you look it seems to be his intention to treat our friends as enemies and our enemies as friends. South of our border, the good people and legitimate government of Honduras used legal and constitutional means to rid themselves of a Hugo Chavez crony. Instead of applauding them for protecting their liberties, Obama’s State Department seems determined to reinstall a budding Marxist tyrant there. Shame on them.

To put it as succinctly as possible, Barack Obama seems determined to preside over the most radical transformation of the Federal Government this country has ever seen.

And the American people don’t want it.

The American people don’t want trillion-dollar deficits. They don’t want huge new government agencies to supervise our health care. They don’t want the people who defended us from terrorism persecuted or prosecuted.

They don’t want our friends penalized or our enemies pandered to. They don’t want more of their hard-earned money taken from them and given to people who didn’t earn it and don’t deserve it.

And when they’ve had all they can stand, they really don’t want to be called “un-American” and “evil mongers” when they finally decide to speak out.

So what do I think will happen?

I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of liberal domination in Washington. I think Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Barack Obama have badly underestimated the American people. They lied about what they’d do and they badly misjudged how much we would endure.

The counter-revolution has begun. You can see it at town hall meetings and tea parties. You can hear it in conversations with your neighbors. You can feel it as the left becomes more hysterical, more abusive, and … yes, I’m delighted to say it … more frightened.

We won’t win every battle over the next year or two. But we’ll win a bunch of them. And before too much more time passes—by the time Barack Obama’s successor is getting ready to leave the White House—I predict that the Obama era will be seen as the last gasp of liberalism. The dinosaurs of the left may not become extinct. But they are about to lose their fangs.

Yes, the era of big government will soon be over. And we’ll have Barack Obama and all of his over-reaching cronies to thank for it.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood