E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Struggles Anew to Ensure Air Safety As Gaps Are Revealed. A review of government audits and interviews with experts inside and outside the government shows that the system has been slow to make even bigger changes because of a balky bureaucracy, fickle politics and, at times, airline industry opposition. It has also squandered tens of millions of dollars on faulty technology, like high-tech "puffer" machines that repeatedly broke down and flunked the most basic test: they failed to detect some explosives. (nytimes.com)".
These failures are not the fault of technology. They are the fault of ideology. If one does not have a clear understanding of the problem, no amount of successful technology will be able to solve it.
A prime example is the Christmas day attempt to destroy passengers and an airplane traveling from Amsterdam to the US. Homeland Security Sec. Napolitano is the typical example of confused ideology. She said that the security system worked. The adjunct of that is nobody will be held responsible for an obvious failure to protect the American public. The system will not be modified, because it is already claimed to be effective. The perpetrator will likely be given a slap on the wrist. Al Qaeda will be encouraged to continue its terrorist activities, because government officials appear to have no understanding of what's really going on.
How ridiculous can one get? Are you in Congress a pawn of the Obama Administration or an effective part of the US government? If the latter, you and your associates should be immediately demanding the firing of Homeland Security Sec. Napolitano as being mentally unfit to perform the duties of her responsibility. Notice that I said "firing", rather than asking for her resignation. She deserves no respect in this episode.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Nuclear Arms and Russia
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Russia Accuses U.S. of Throwing Up Last-minute Obstacle to Nuclear Arms Treaty. Russia is accusing the United States of throwing up last-minute obstacles to a new landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty as Nato promised Moscow the military alliance would "never" attack it. (telegraph.co.uk).
Russians are not stupid, nor are their leaders. Suppose Pres. Obama gives NATO Commanders an order to attack Russia. The Commanders would likely do it, because Pres. Obama is Commander-In-Chief. Also, Commanders like war. It's the basis of why they are in the military in the first place.
Why would Pres. Obama give an order to attack Russia? Who knows? There could be 10 different reasons. What about the promise not to do so? Irrelevant. Pres. Obama has made many promises in the past, which he has not kept. In fact there so many, I can't think of a single one.
What then should the US position be on a Nuclear Arms Treaty? First, it should maintain the aspect of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which I have previously explained. Second, it should eliminate excessive atomic weapons, which are unnecessary to accomplish a MAD response. It should include established procedures, which would avoid accidental initiation of MAD.
On the side, US should continue research to develop improved atomic weapons and techniques to deliver them. In addition, every effort should be made to develop a defense system (Star Wars), which would avoid the intended conclusion of MAD.
If your technologically and strategically ignorant associates in Congress are bent on spending money, US defense is where it should go. Not on frivolous and ridiculous proposals, such as carbon dioxide emission control, or even unnecessary revision of the US health care program.
EIN News says, "Russia Accuses U.S. of Throwing Up Last-minute Obstacle to Nuclear Arms Treaty. Russia is accusing the United States of throwing up last-minute obstacles to a new landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty as Nato promised Moscow the military alliance would "never" attack it. (telegraph.co.uk).
Russians are not stupid, nor are their leaders. Suppose Pres. Obama gives NATO Commanders an order to attack Russia. The Commanders would likely do it, because Pres. Obama is Commander-In-Chief. Also, Commanders like war. It's the basis of why they are in the military in the first place.
Why would Pres. Obama give an order to attack Russia? Who knows? There could be 10 different reasons. What about the promise not to do so? Irrelevant. Pres. Obama has made many promises in the past, which he has not kept. In fact there so many, I can't think of a single one.
What then should the US position be on a Nuclear Arms Treaty? First, it should maintain the aspect of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which I have previously explained. Second, it should eliminate excessive atomic weapons, which are unnecessary to accomplish a MAD response. It should include established procedures, which would avoid accidental initiation of MAD.
On the side, US should continue research to develop improved atomic weapons and techniques to deliver them. In addition, every effort should be made to develop a defense system (Star Wars), which would avoid the intended conclusion of MAD.
If your technologically and strategically ignorant associates in Congress are bent on spending money, US defense is where it should go. Not on frivolous and ridiculous proposals, such as carbon dioxide emission control, or even unnecessary revision of the US health care program.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Atomic Weapon Capability
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Report Calls for Moving to U.S. Nuclear 'Dyad,' Dropping Triad's Bomber Leg. The move would be the ultimate result of arms control and weapons-acquisition trends that undercut the value of a nuclear role for these aircraft, according to a trio of aerospace experts writing for the Air Force Association's Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies. Under such an approach, the nation's nuclear triad would become a "dyad" comprising just submarine- and ground-launched ballistic missiles. (globalsecuritynewswire.org)".
We have avoided atomic warfare for 70 years, because of a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) strategy. This strategy says that any perpetrator who detonates an atomic weapon in the US may be assured of atomic weapon retaliation to the extent that the perpetrating country and its population will be destroyed.
While it has worked in the past, it has done so because of the worldwide belief that US leaders will have the physical ability to do as claimed and also the fortitude to do it. In other words, there are two requirements to continue to make this strategy work.
Pres. Obama has been going around the world making friends, which also leads to a possible perception on the part of evildoers that he will not have the fortitude to carry out the MAD strategy. The presently publicized reduction of atomic weapon capability as the second aspect is likely to encourage evildoers to take the risk.
I realize that there are many members of the House and Senate who have grown up in an era of "let's hug and be comfy", which makes it very difficult for them to realize evildoers can be a serious security threat to the US. It takes a knowledge of history, human nature and some judgment to come to a correct decision. I'm sure that you have it, but you also must believe that voting numbers are against you. This means that you will have to work significantly harder to make your vote count two or three times its mathematical value, as you try to stop the timid and physically unjustifiable reductions of our atomic weapon usability.
EIN News says, "Report Calls for Moving to U.S. Nuclear 'Dyad,' Dropping Triad's Bomber Leg. The move would be the ultimate result of arms control and weapons-acquisition trends that undercut the value of a nuclear role for these aircraft, according to a trio of aerospace experts writing for the Air Force Association's Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies. Under such an approach, the nation's nuclear triad would become a "dyad" comprising just submarine- and ground-launched ballistic missiles. (globalsecuritynewswire.org)".
We have avoided atomic warfare for 70 years, because of a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) strategy. This strategy says that any perpetrator who detonates an atomic weapon in the US may be assured of atomic weapon retaliation to the extent that the perpetrating country and its population will be destroyed.
While it has worked in the past, it has done so because of the worldwide belief that US leaders will have the physical ability to do as claimed and also the fortitude to do it. In other words, there are two requirements to continue to make this strategy work.
Pres. Obama has been going around the world making friends, which also leads to a possible perception on the part of evildoers that he will not have the fortitude to carry out the MAD strategy. The presently publicized reduction of atomic weapon capability as the second aspect is likely to encourage evildoers to take the risk.
I realize that there are many members of the House and Senate who have grown up in an era of "let's hug and be comfy", which makes it very difficult for them to realize evildoers can be a serious security threat to the US. It takes a knowledge of history, human nature and some judgment to come to a correct decision. I'm sure that you have it, but you also must believe that voting numbers are against you. This means that you will have to work significantly harder to make your vote count two or three times its mathematical value, as you try to stop the timid and physically unjustifiable reductions of our atomic weapon usability.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A Time of Universal Deceit
E-mail to Congress:
This is an interesting philosophical article by Star Parker, a syndicated columnist:
"Gallup's just-released Honesty and Ethics of Professions poll shows that for the first time, a majority -- 55 percent -- rate members of the U.S. House of Representatives low/very low for honesty and ethics. Senators come in slightly better at 49 percent."
"A whopping 9 percent of the House and 11 percent of the Senate get high/very high ratings in honesty and ethics."
"Even members of the clergy do not escape this cynical cloud hanging over the nation. Although 50 percent rate the clergy as high/very high in honesty and ethics, this is the lowest since Gallup starting reporting it.
"This prevailing mood of distrust is understandable given how commonplace it has become for so many in public life to lie to us."
"A mountain of hacked emails shows that scientists who held the public trust regarding information on climate change research were liars. The emails show they selectively expunged data and suppressed research not supporting the conclusions they wanted showing man-made global warming."
"Congress is frenetically trying to pass major healthcare reform that report after report shows is filled with politically manipulated data and conclusions."
"And now we learn that even Tiger Woods has been lying to us about whom he is."
"What is so troubling is that all this is not about human error or fallibility. It's the opposite. It's about individuals intentionally manipulating information to deceive the public in order to advance their own personal agendas."
"The late writer/physician Michael Crichton pointed out back in 2003 in a speech he gave at the California Institute of Technology the common sense being violated in the research allegedly showing that human activity is causing the earth's climate to irreversibly warm."
'Nobody believes a weather prediction 12 hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everyone lost their minds? '
"Similarly in the healthcare reform push, simple exercise of common sense would put the brakes on what is going on."
"Before us is proposed massive new government expenditures and intervention into healthcare markets under the assumption that the benefits of all this government activity will exceed the costs."
"But simple honesty would recognize that if this were true it would be unprecedented."
"When Medicare was enacted in 1967, the projections then were that its annual expenditures by 1990 would be $12 billion. Actual expenditures in 1990 were $110 billion."
"Medicaid started as a proposed modest program with $1 billion in annual expenditures. It's now $280 billion.
"We're told that healthcare reform won't cost more than $900 billion over the next 10 years. This is accomplished on paper by sleight of hand. Taxes are assumed to start in 2010, but expenditures not until 2014. Starting the meter when the expenditures actually begin shows that over the first ten years the costs are more like $2.5 trillion."
"It's not that we no longer know how to conduct honest inquiry in America. It's that our interest in doing so is disappearing. How can you search for truth in a society that increasingly denies that truth exists?"
"What is adultery when our acceptance of something as basic as the definition of marriage can change with the political winds? So Tiger Woods, unhampered by moral constraint, simply pays handlers to produce a public image calculated to maximize his income."
"Our national history began by asserting "self evident truths." Now we have a president who, in his interpretation of our constitutional history, writes: 'Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth.... '
"It must have been times like this that George Orwell had in mind when he wrote: 'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'
Congressman, with this background, the questions are simple. Are you part of the universal deceit, or are you willing to engage in a revolutionary act by telling the truth? From previous communications, you appear to be telling the truth, but it must be done more forcefully to have any effect.
This is an interesting philosophical article by Star Parker, a syndicated columnist:
"Gallup's just-released Honesty and Ethics of Professions poll shows that for the first time, a majority -- 55 percent -- rate members of the U.S. House of Representatives low/very low for honesty and ethics. Senators come in slightly better at 49 percent."
"A whopping 9 percent of the House and 11 percent of the Senate get high/very high ratings in honesty and ethics."
"Even members of the clergy do not escape this cynical cloud hanging over the nation. Although 50 percent rate the clergy as high/very high in honesty and ethics, this is the lowest since Gallup starting reporting it.
"This prevailing mood of distrust is understandable given how commonplace it has become for so many in public life to lie to us."
"A mountain of hacked emails shows that scientists who held the public trust regarding information on climate change research were liars. The emails show they selectively expunged data and suppressed research not supporting the conclusions they wanted showing man-made global warming."
"Congress is frenetically trying to pass major healthcare reform that report after report shows is filled with politically manipulated data and conclusions."
"And now we learn that even Tiger Woods has been lying to us about whom he is."
"What is so troubling is that all this is not about human error or fallibility. It's the opposite. It's about individuals intentionally manipulating information to deceive the public in order to advance their own personal agendas."
"The late writer/physician Michael Crichton pointed out back in 2003 in a speech he gave at the California Institute of Technology the common sense being violated in the research allegedly showing that human activity is causing the earth's climate to irreversibly warm."
'Nobody believes a weather prediction 12 hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everyone lost their minds? '
"Similarly in the healthcare reform push, simple exercise of common sense would put the brakes on what is going on."
"Before us is proposed massive new government expenditures and intervention into healthcare markets under the assumption that the benefits of all this government activity will exceed the costs."
"But simple honesty would recognize that if this were true it would be unprecedented."
"When Medicare was enacted in 1967, the projections then were that its annual expenditures by 1990 would be $12 billion. Actual expenditures in 1990 were $110 billion."
"Medicaid started as a proposed modest program with $1 billion in annual expenditures. It's now $280 billion.
"We're told that healthcare reform won't cost more than $900 billion over the next 10 years. This is accomplished on paper by sleight of hand. Taxes are assumed to start in 2010, but expenditures not until 2014. Starting the meter when the expenditures actually begin shows that over the first ten years the costs are more like $2.5 trillion."
"It's not that we no longer know how to conduct honest inquiry in America. It's that our interest in doing so is disappearing. How can you search for truth in a society that increasingly denies that truth exists?"
"What is adultery when our acceptance of something as basic as the definition of marriage can change with the political winds? So Tiger Woods, unhampered by moral constraint, simply pays handlers to produce a public image calculated to maximize his income."
"Our national history began by asserting "self evident truths." Now we have a president who, in his interpretation of our constitutional history, writes: 'Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth.... '
"It must have been times like this that George Orwell had in mind when he wrote: 'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'
Congressman, with this background, the questions are simple. Are you part of the universal deceit, or are you willing to engage in a revolutionary act by telling the truth? From previous communications, you appear to be telling the truth, but it must be done more forcefully to have any effect.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Time to Promote Freedom and Opportunity Versus Communism
E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I read your December 14 Newsletter.
You and I are exactly on the same wavelength, with respect to significantly reducing national, opposing permanent bailouts, and ignoring the ridiculous Copenhagen Treaty Conference.
The difference is that I have a very small voice in my writing. You have a potentially big voice, as a US Representative to Congress. I agree that it's obviously necessary to keep your constituency informed on your positions, so that you will have their support through reelection. However, I have complained previously that you are not making a big enough splash with your fellow representatives.
I now partially withdraw that comment after having seen your performance on two issues on YouTube. You are a good speaker, but I noted that you had an essentially nonexistent audience. That could have been a deficiency of negative political set-up, over which you had no control. However, it also could have been a matter that your stated position and presentation were not "thunderous".
May I suggest that you pull out all the stops. Name names. Talk dollar amounts. Have your staff scrape up scandal on your opponents. And, fight fight fight. You might want to get some videos of Sen. McCarthy's speeches when he was uncovering communists in the federal government and Hollywood. In the ensuing time, communism is perceived to be a more desirable form of government. This has been accomplished through continued pressure by socially elite liberals. However, there are no selling points to communism, when one stresses life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even the most sedentary of persons wants freedom of choice. The Bill of Rights can be sold and communism destroyed, but it takes effort, effort, and effort.
Pres. Obama and his socialist regime continue to have high support based on polling of the American public. However, those polls are questionable. Even so, they show a continued decline of satisfaction with a socialist regime. Republicans continue to be confused at the top level of strategy and platform. There is a great opportunity for a clear thinker and promoter to change that situation, so that a program of freedom and opportunity might again prevail in this US, after the next election.
I read your December 14 Newsletter.
You and I are exactly on the same wavelength, with respect to significantly reducing national, opposing permanent bailouts, and ignoring the ridiculous Copenhagen Treaty Conference.
The difference is that I have a very small voice in my writing. You have a potentially big voice, as a US Representative to Congress. I agree that it's obviously necessary to keep your constituency informed on your positions, so that you will have their support through reelection. However, I have complained previously that you are not making a big enough splash with your fellow representatives.
I now partially withdraw that comment after having seen your performance on two issues on YouTube. You are a good speaker, but I noted that you had an essentially nonexistent audience. That could have been a deficiency of negative political set-up, over which you had no control. However, it also could have been a matter that your stated position and presentation were not "thunderous".
May I suggest that you pull out all the stops. Name names. Talk dollar amounts. Have your staff scrape up scandal on your opponents. And, fight fight fight. You might want to get some videos of Sen. McCarthy's speeches when he was uncovering communists in the federal government and Hollywood. In the ensuing time, communism is perceived to be a more desirable form of government. This has been accomplished through continued pressure by socially elite liberals. However, there are no selling points to communism, when one stresses life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even the most sedentary of persons wants freedom of choice. The Bill of Rights can be sold and communism destroyed, but it takes effort, effort, and effort.
Pres. Obama and his socialist regime continue to have high support based on polling of the American public. However, those polls are questionable. Even so, they show a continued decline of satisfaction with a socialist regime. Republicans continue to be confused at the top level of strategy and platform. There is a great opportunity for a clear thinker and promoter to change that situation, so that a program of freedom and opportunity might again prevail in this US, after the next election.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Rep. Neugebauer's Newsletter on Afghanistan
I sent the following comments to Rep. Neugebauer concerning his visit to Afghanistan:
I have read your December 7 newsletter concerning your visit to Afghanistan.
My first reaction is to congratulate you for visiting this hot spot of contention. Later reflection, based on the details of your report, leads me to wonder a bit. When a high profile person representing money such as yourself, visits the recipients, it is almost guaranteed that they will lay out the red carpet, put their best foot forward and sell you on a program which is in their interest rather than yours.
I agree you hit Pres. Karzai hard, but as you point out, he is still the President. You can be sure that he will merely mouth you and any other Congressional visitors to extract from the American public every last dollar that he can.
The US military in Afghanistan is composed of people with a combination of motives. Some are in the military primarily to have someone take care of them. Some are there because they want to fight. Others seek power. However, the whole combination should have known full well when they enlisted that there are various jobs to be done. In many cases, these require multiple assignments to fighting zones and most involve separation from their families, when they have families. What I'm saying is, my heartstrings should not be pulled because of these family separations and possibility of death from enemy action through multiple tours of duty. I also love and pray for them, but these responsibilities, duties, and risks go with the job.
However, I am more concerned with why we are there. You have not addressed that point specifically and perhaps you should not have, based upon the fact that your visit involved on-the-ground viewing, rather than strategy. You did touch on it a bit by saying the Afghans must take ownership of their country and make the decisions and sacrifices that are necessary to be a free people. You also said Pres. Karzai must establish a responsible government, which would include eliminating corruption, in response to US support. Randy, this is nation-building, and we should have no part of it. Liberal Democrats have been trying to do this for a great number of years, and it has failed every time.
Our only interest in Afghanistan should be a matter of American security. Our interest is that Al Qaeda and the Taliban should not be using Afghanistan as a base of operations from which to obtain Pakistani nuclear weapons, with the possibility that those weapons might be used against us. However I have treated that subject separately, including interest and responsibilities of Russia and the NATO countries of Western Europe. I've also said ground forces in Afghanistan are not necessary to maintain this American security. It can be done by superior technological capabilities from a distance.
The bottom line of now having our military in Afghanistan is nation-building, and we should get out. I quote you again, "The Afghans must take ownership of their country and make the decisions and sacrifices that are necessary to be a free people".
I have read your December 7 newsletter concerning your visit to Afghanistan.
My first reaction is to congratulate you for visiting this hot spot of contention. Later reflection, based on the details of your report, leads me to wonder a bit. When a high profile person representing money such as yourself, visits the recipients, it is almost guaranteed that they will lay out the red carpet, put their best foot forward and sell you on a program which is in their interest rather than yours.
I agree you hit Pres. Karzai hard, but as you point out, he is still the President. You can be sure that he will merely mouth you and any other Congressional visitors to extract from the American public every last dollar that he can.
The US military in Afghanistan is composed of people with a combination of motives. Some are in the military primarily to have someone take care of them. Some are there because they want to fight. Others seek power. However, the whole combination should have known full well when they enlisted that there are various jobs to be done. In many cases, these require multiple assignments to fighting zones and most involve separation from their families, when they have families. What I'm saying is, my heartstrings should not be pulled because of these family separations and possibility of death from enemy action through multiple tours of duty. I also love and pray for them, but these responsibilities, duties, and risks go with the job.
However, I am more concerned with why we are there. You have not addressed that point specifically and perhaps you should not have, based upon the fact that your visit involved on-the-ground viewing, rather than strategy. You did touch on it a bit by saying the Afghans must take ownership of their country and make the decisions and sacrifices that are necessary to be a free people. You also said Pres. Karzai must establish a responsible government, which would include eliminating corruption, in response to US support. Randy, this is nation-building, and we should have no part of it. Liberal Democrats have been trying to do this for a great number of years, and it has failed every time.
Our only interest in Afghanistan should be a matter of American security. Our interest is that Al Qaeda and the Taliban should not be using Afghanistan as a base of operations from which to obtain Pakistani nuclear weapons, with the possibility that those weapons might be used against us. However I have treated that subject separately, including interest and responsibilities of Russia and the NATO countries of Western Europe. I've also said ground forces in Afghanistan are not necessary to maintain this American security. It can be done by superior technological capabilities from a distance.
The bottom line of now having our military in Afghanistan is nation-building, and we should get out. I quote you again, "The Afghans must take ownership of their country and make the decisions and sacrifices that are necessary to be a free people".
Friday, December 4, 2009
More on troops to Afghanistan
E-mail to Congress:
I listened to Pres. Obama's talk from West Point concerning why he was sending 30,000 more ground troops to Afghanistan.
He didn't say anything we already didn't know. Basically, he claimed to be doing so for "security" reasons. He didn't say what "security". He sort of skirted around the fact that Pakistan has atomic weapons, and he doesn't want those atomic weapons to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or Taliban.
I found it much more interesting that later all the pundits were discussing the timetable of withdrawal, without any significant attention to the atomic weapon aspect. There was no mention of Western Europe or Russia, as their even having the slightest interest in the affair. It was as if they are somehow immune to any effects of atomic weapons falling into the hands of rogue countries. The pundit discussion was only about the United States and what it could and would do. There was some reference to all the great help that the NATO countries would contribute to the ground forces. In fact, Great Britain will send 500, and Italy later said they would send 1000. Is that a significant contribution compared to our sending 30,000? Will France, Germany, and Spain do it? Not on your life. The European Union has always taken the attitude that if there is tough work to be done, "let George (the US) do it".
Lets assume the worst for a minute. Let's assume that Al Qaeda and Taliban form a partnership and collectively they are able to confiscate the atomic weapons of Pakistan. So what? The partnership has no animosity toward Russia, Spain, European Union countries in general? Wrong! They will strike where it will be the easiest to strike, and that will not be the US. They have no intercontinental ballistic missiles for delivery and smuggling an atomic weapon into the US by sea and overland would be extremely difficult, compared to a nice drop on a close European country. Do you think that European countries haven't already anticipated this? They have! They are just waiting for bankrupt US to handle the problem for them, go deeper into debt, fall apart at the seams, and then they will see what they have to do on their own.
I listened to Pres. Obama's talk from West Point concerning why he was sending 30,000 more ground troops to Afghanistan.
He didn't say anything we already didn't know. Basically, he claimed to be doing so for "security" reasons. He didn't say what "security". He sort of skirted around the fact that Pakistan has atomic weapons, and he doesn't want those atomic weapons to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or Taliban.
I found it much more interesting that later all the pundits were discussing the timetable of withdrawal, without any significant attention to the atomic weapon aspect. There was no mention of Western Europe or Russia, as their even having the slightest interest in the affair. It was as if they are somehow immune to any effects of atomic weapons falling into the hands of rogue countries. The pundit discussion was only about the United States and what it could and would do. There was some reference to all the great help that the NATO countries would contribute to the ground forces. In fact, Great Britain will send 500, and Italy later said they would send 1000. Is that a significant contribution compared to our sending 30,000? Will France, Germany, and Spain do it? Not on your life. The European Union has always taken the attitude that if there is tough work to be done, "let George (the US) do it".
Lets assume the worst for a minute. Let's assume that Al Qaeda and Taliban form a partnership and collectively they are able to confiscate the atomic weapons of Pakistan. So what? The partnership has no animosity toward Russia, Spain, European Union countries in general? Wrong! They will strike where it will be the easiest to strike, and that will not be the US. They have no intercontinental ballistic missiles for delivery and smuggling an atomic weapon into the US by sea and overland would be extremely difficult, compared to a nice drop on a close European country. Do you think that European countries haven't already anticipated this? They have! They are just waiting for bankrupt US to handle the problem for them, go deeper into debt, fall apart at the seams, and then they will see what they have to do on their own.
Troops to Afghanistan
E-mail to Representative Neugebauer:
I have read your November 30 Newsletter.
I see that you are basically in support of sending additional troops to Afghanistan. I am not, although I retain an open mind to see what President Obama offers in the way of strategy in his talk this evening.
The tentative reason for my position is that we should not be "nation-building". We have tried this before at great cost and have always failed. We obviously can't afford it now, with all of the ridiculous expenditures that Congress and the President have approved to astronomically increase our government debt and fiscal deficit.
If it is not "nation-building", but more a matter of security for the American public, there are other ways to obtain that security without ground troops. If the CIA has any validity, we have covert capability to determine locations of potential threat. These could be handled by significant strikes through use of intercontinental ballistic missiles or traditional aerial bombardment. Keep in mind also that both Russia and China have a stake in avoiding the use of atomic weapons by maverick countries or groups.
Now that President Obama has decided to send more troops, I hope his evening presentation will clearly define why we are doing so.
I think you are right on target with respect to "Climate Gate
I have read your November 30 Newsletter.
I see that you are basically in support of sending additional troops to Afghanistan. I am not, although I retain an open mind to see what President Obama offers in the way of strategy in his talk this evening.
The tentative reason for my position is that we should not be "nation-building". We have tried this before at great cost and have always failed. We obviously can't afford it now, with all of the ridiculous expenditures that Congress and the President have approved to astronomically increase our government debt and fiscal deficit.
If it is not "nation-building", but more a matter of security for the American public, there are other ways to obtain that security without ground troops. If the CIA has any validity, we have covert capability to determine locations of potential threat. These could be handled by significant strikes through use of intercontinental ballistic missiles or traditional aerial bombardment. Keep in mind also that both Russia and China have a stake in avoiding the use of atomic weapons by maverick countries or groups.
Now that President Obama has decided to send more troops, I hope his evening presentation will clearly define why we are doing so.
I think you are right on target with respect to "Climate Gate
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Car Company Bailouts
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Saab Likely to Close As GM Fails to Sell Car Brand. A deal for General Motors Co. to sell Saab to a specialty carmaker has collapsed, leaving the storied Swedish brand born from jets in 1947 close to extinction. Koenigsegg Group AB, a consortium formed by Swedish luxury sports car maker Koenigsegg Automotive AB, said Tuesday it pulled out of the deal in part because it was unable to agree with investors on how best to move the brand from mass-market to premium. (google.com)".
This is good. There are too many car companies producing too many cars for the available market. The less efficient ones, with respect to market needs, should fail. If we can just get governments to keep their hands off the situation and let market forces work, rather than use bailouts, the situation will improve.
EIN News says, "Saab Likely to Close As GM Fails to Sell Car Brand. A deal for General Motors Co. to sell Saab to a specialty carmaker has collapsed, leaving the storied Swedish brand born from jets in 1947 close to extinction. Koenigsegg Group AB, a consortium formed by Swedish luxury sports car maker Koenigsegg Automotive AB, said Tuesday it pulled out of the deal in part because it was unable to agree with investors on how best to move the brand from mass-market to premium. (google.com)".
This is good. There are too many car companies producing too many cars for the available market. The less efficient ones, with respect to market needs, should fail. If we can just get governments to keep their hands off the situation and let market forces work, rather than use bailouts, the situation will improve.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Patenting Ideas
EIN News says, "U.S. Supreme Court to Decide When Ideas Deserve Patents. It all started in 1997 when a little-known company wanted to patent a method for letting customers of utility companies pay a fixed, predictable sum each month. The patent office rejected their application on the grounds that it was "an abstract idea that simply solves a mathematical problem." Huge legal expenses and 13 years later, the two men behind the case, Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw, had their day in the U.S. Supreme Court on November 9. Most legal experts though, agreed that the duo had no chance of victory. (einnews.com)".
The obvious answer to this one is, "never". Ideas are a dime a dozen. They do have value as initiators for inventors to do work to obtain a bona fide practical invention. Even with this limitation, many inventions that qualify and achieve patent status have no practical value. Those inventions have been a waste of time and money for the inventor and for the US Patent and Trademark Office. If we start patenting ideas, we will be compounding the problems of a patent system, which is already overloaded, even when using the traditional limitations.
The meaning of "had their day in the US Supreme Court" is not clear. Perhaps it means that the court was obtaining information on which to decide whether to take the case. If so, I hope it gets no farther than that.
The obvious answer to this one is, "never". Ideas are a dime a dozen. They do have value as initiators for inventors to do work to obtain a bona fide practical invention. Even with this limitation, many inventions that qualify and achieve patent status have no practical value. Those inventions have been a waste of time and money for the inventor and for the US Patent and Trademark Office. If we start patenting ideas, we will be compounding the problems of a patent system, which is already overloaded, even when using the traditional limitations.
The meaning of "had their day in the US Supreme Court" is not clear. Perhaps it means that the court was obtaining information on which to decide whether to take the case. If so, I hope it gets no farther than that.
Americans Struggling Against Starvation
EIN News says, "New Report Says 50 Million Americans 'Struggle to Get Enough to Eat'. The nation's economic crisis has catapulted the number of Americans who lack enough food to the highest level since the government has been keeping track, according to a new federal report, which shows that nearly 50 million people -- including almost one child in four -- struggled last year to get enough to eat. (washingtonpost.com)".
I am always suspicious of astounding statements not supported by sufficient data. In this case, I suspect the unnamed federal department, which made the unspecified federal report, is motivated to establish that only big government can care for "the poor and indigent". Since most people are concerned with their own lives, government tries to establish a public compassion, whereby they will obtain approval to use public money for such projects.
Before we move down the abused compassion road, we need to ask a few other questions. How many of the 50 million starving people live in a family with the car (luxury)? In a family with one or more TVs (luxury)? Have a cell phone (luxury)? Receive food stamps (already on the dole)? Smoke (luxury)? Drink alcoholic beverages (luxury)? Use illegal drugs (obviously illegal)? Have been to a bar in the last week (luxury)? Have attended a sporting event or rock concert within the last month (luxury)? Are registered as unemployed but not looking for work (on the dole)? I bet I can think of others, but this is enough for starters.
Would the unnamed federal agency be so kind as to address those questions of the previous paragraph and publicly announce the date in an understandable form, such as percent of food struggling persons having the described asset or benefit?
I am always suspicious of astounding statements not supported by sufficient data. In this case, I suspect the unnamed federal department, which made the unspecified federal report, is motivated to establish that only big government can care for "the poor and indigent". Since most people are concerned with their own lives, government tries to establish a public compassion, whereby they will obtain approval to use public money for such projects.
Before we move down the abused compassion road, we need to ask a few other questions. How many of the 50 million starving people live in a family with the car (luxury)? In a family with one or more TVs (luxury)? Have a cell phone (luxury)? Receive food stamps (already on the dole)? Smoke (luxury)? Drink alcoholic beverages (luxury)? Use illegal drugs (obviously illegal)? Have been to a bar in the last week (luxury)? Have attended a sporting event or rock concert within the last month (luxury)? Are registered as unemployed but not looking for work (on the dole)? I bet I can think of others, but this is enough for starters.
Would the unnamed federal agency be so kind as to address those questions of the previous paragraph and publicly announce the date in an understandable form, such as percent of food struggling persons having the described asset or benefit?
Torture of Al Qaeda Suspects
EIN News says, "CIA Secret 'Torture' Prison Found at Fancy Horseback Riding Academy in Lithuania. The CIA built one of its secret European prisons inside an exclusive riding academy outside Vilnius, Lithuania, a current Lithuanian government official and a former U.S. intelligence official told ABC News this week. Where affluent Lithuanians once rode show horses and sipped coffee at a café, the CIA installed a concrete structure where it could use harsh tactics to interrogate up to eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at a time.
(abcnews.go.com)".
Torturing and the use of truth drugs on suspected Al Qaeda terrorists should be standard practice. Congratulations to the CIA. Maybe they are not the bunch of pantywaists I previously suspected.
I don't know what the use of an exclusive riding academy outside Vilnius has to do with it. It seems interrogation could be done anywhere. I also question the need for secrecy. It is likely that if Al Qaeda knows of the existence of such facilities and practices, they would be less aggressive. For those of public faint heart who might believe that this would intensify Al Qaeda antagonism, don't you believe it. These people already have an extreme ideology to the extent that they commit suicide in their operations.
(abcnews.go.com)".
Torturing and the use of truth drugs on suspected Al Qaeda terrorists should be standard practice. Congratulations to the CIA. Maybe they are not the bunch of pantywaists I previously suspected.
I don't know what the use of an exclusive riding academy outside Vilnius has to do with it. It seems interrogation could be done anywhere. I also question the need for secrecy. It is likely that if Al Qaeda knows of the existence of such facilities and practices, they would be less aggressive. For those of public faint heart who might believe that this would intensify Al Qaeda antagonism, don't you believe it. These people already have an extreme ideology to the extent that they commit suicide in their operations.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Terrorist Trial in New York
E-mail to Sen. Cornyn:
I have read your, "Sen. Cornyn: Putting Political Ideology Ahead of the Safety of the American People is Irresponsible".
Congratulations!
I believe you are now seeing that the socialist Obama Administration is one to fight against.
While it would be nice to have cooperation between the Administration and Congress, and we have previously had that, there comes a time when demonstrating disagreement is absolutely necessary. This is the time.
You and your Associates have already given President Obama too many of his ridiculous requests. Cite bailouts as an example. It is past time to backtrack.
I have read your, "Sen. Cornyn: Putting Political Ideology Ahead of the Safety of the American People is Irresponsible".
Congratulations!
I believe you are now seeing that the socialist Obama Administration is one to fight against.
While it would be nice to have cooperation between the Administration and Congress, and we have previously had that, there comes a time when demonstrating disagreement is absolutely necessary. This is the time.
You and your Associates have already given President Obama too many of his ridiculous requests. Cite bailouts as an example. It is past time to backtrack.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A friend of mine sent me an essay from Dr. David Keister. Dr. Keister's essay is first listed below. It is then followed by my comments.
From Dr. Keister:
"History Unfolding
I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books on history that have been published in six languages, and I have studied history all my life. I have come to think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is simply a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus..
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy.. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely what I am talking about) - the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.. It is potentially 1929 x ten...And we are at war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska .. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.)
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.
This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.
And that is only the beginning..
As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s In those times, the "savior" was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative "losers" read it right now.
And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did - regularly. And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled economic crisis bloomed at hand - the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly what to think. Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of course,
How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media - did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and .... . ... change. And the people surely got what they voted for.
If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It's all there in the history books.
So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. And the world came to regret that he was not listened to.
Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors.. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me..
I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it.
I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the next elections.
David Kaiser
Jamestown , Rhode Island
United States
My comments are as follows:
I believe this man has pegged it exactly correctly. He is part of a political minority. Most of the voting public don't know and don't care.
We fall on what we perceive are these difficult times because of a couple of basic factors, of which the passage of time is probably the most important.
When our forefathers set up the Constitution, the government was intended to be a Republic rather than a Democracy. The House Of Representatives was intended to represent the people. The Senate was intended to represent the states. And, the president was intended to be elected through an electoral college, as opposed to a popular vote. House Representatives and Senators were initially part-time federal employees, who served out of duty with minimal salary and short job stay.
In subsequent years, the public learned it could obtain "free stuff" by pressuring House Representatives in Washington. The public also learned that once it had laid the groundwork for receipt of such goodies, it would be ridiculous to replace those "educated" Representatives. The public now tries to keep Representatives in office term after term after term. The Representatives have also learned to use public greed to feather their own nests.
Senatorial positions have also fallen into the same development. Senators are no longer the statesman they were intended to be. They have been reduced by themselves and the public to political hacks, with intent to remain in office as long as possible, reap salaries and other benefits and have the prestige of perceived power.
The Presidential Administration has followed the same course of development.
The bottom line is that while our forefathers tried to forestall such development in their initial government design, we the people have been pretty much able to undo it.
Unfortunately, the future of our government development is likely to continue to move in the same direction. The rate of change toward Socialism will vary from year to year but the public now clearly understands the concepts of "free stuff", keep your political hacks in office, yell loudly, and juggle the vote through the uneducated and uninterested.
On the bright side, governments, similar to people, have a lifespan. The US government will continue to move into a dictatorial oligarchy based on socialistic principles. The public and government employees will have withdrawn all assets. The leaders will be held responsible and will pay the price. The French and Russian revolutions are examples. We then start the fight against government all over again, as our forefathers did in 1776.
ACS
From Dr. Keister:
"History Unfolding
I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books on history that have been published in six languages, and I have studied history all my life. I have come to think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is simply a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus..
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy.. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely what I am talking about) - the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.. It is potentially 1929 x ten...And we are at war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska .. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.)
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.
This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.
And that is only the beginning..
As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s In those times, the "savior" was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative "losers" read it right now.
And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did - regularly. And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled economic crisis bloomed at hand - the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly what to think. Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of course,
How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media - did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and .... . ... change. And the people surely got what they voted for.
If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It's all there in the history books.
So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. And the world came to regret that he was not listened to.
Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors.. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me..
I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it.
I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the next elections.
David Kaiser
Jamestown , Rhode Island
United States
My comments are as follows:
I believe this man has pegged it exactly correctly. He is part of a political minority. Most of the voting public don't know and don't care.
We fall on what we perceive are these difficult times because of a couple of basic factors, of which the passage of time is probably the most important.
When our forefathers set up the Constitution, the government was intended to be a Republic rather than a Democracy. The House Of Representatives was intended to represent the people. The Senate was intended to represent the states. And, the president was intended to be elected through an electoral college, as opposed to a popular vote. House Representatives and Senators were initially part-time federal employees, who served out of duty with minimal salary and short job stay.
In subsequent years, the public learned it could obtain "free stuff" by pressuring House Representatives in Washington. The public also learned that once it had laid the groundwork for receipt of such goodies, it would be ridiculous to replace those "educated" Representatives. The public now tries to keep Representatives in office term after term after term. The Representatives have also learned to use public greed to feather their own nests.
Senatorial positions have also fallen into the same development. Senators are no longer the statesman they were intended to be. They have been reduced by themselves and the public to political hacks, with intent to remain in office as long as possible, reap salaries and other benefits and have the prestige of perceived power.
The Presidential Administration has followed the same course of development.
The bottom line is that while our forefathers tried to forestall such development in their initial government design, we the people have been pretty much able to undo it.
Unfortunately, the future of our government development is likely to continue to move in the same direction. The rate of change toward Socialism will vary from year to year but the public now clearly understands the concepts of "free stuff", keep your political hacks in office, yell loudly, and juggle the vote through the uneducated and uninterested.
On the bright side, governments, similar to people, have a lifespan. The US government will continue to move into a dictatorial oligarchy based on socialistic principles. The public and government employees will have withdrawn all assets. The leaders will be held responsible and will pay the price. The French and Russian revolutions are examples. We then start the fight against government all over again, as our forefathers did in 1776.
ACS
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Comments on Rep. Neugebauer's Newsletter
Comments to Rep. Neugebauer on his Newsletter:
I read your November 9th newsletter.
Pretty good try on defeating the Obama/Pelosi Healthcare bill in the House, but not enough networking. I believe you need to develop a more effective procedure to educate your more ignorant House associates. The "House Call" on Washington was a nice touch and something you need to support, but the heavy work is done in the House voting, and that's where you need to be more effective.
On the Fort Hood Tragedy and Veterans Day, these are small potatoes compared to what we need to save us all. Healthcare and Climate Control are clearly demonstrating how many aspects of the public are cooperating with government to drag us into Communism. It was interesting to note the anniversary of the Berlin Wall falling and what the news media had to say about it. Communism was mentioned, as well as the observation that the Wall fell from the inside, but there was no information on why it fell and the motivation for those insiders, who pushed it over. All of this history is being ignored as we blithely dance into Communism here in the US.
“Your Question of the Week”. Do you believe we need another economic stimulus package from the federal government to combat the 10.2% and rising unemployment rate? The answer to this one is "yes", but not in the form of dumping money into a rat hole as we have done previously. The high unemployment rate results from many years of neglect to private industry in the United States, as jobs were shipped overseas. A lot of our local production expertise has already been lost and equipment has been dismantled and junked. It will take many years to recover even in a favorable environment, which we do not have at the present time. The previously government established hindrances to local production still exist. A stimulus package must address those issues of removing various mandates on employment. Examples, high company taxes, penalty for not adhering to health insurance mandate, such as in the recently passed House Bill, minimum wage law, working hour limitations. In addition to removing the mandates, government needs to enforce regulations on banking and apply other financial controls in that industry, and enforce antitrust laws to improve competition. This latter would include eliminating interlocking directorships in major corporations, which is the primary basis for huge salaries and bonuses for executives, at the expense of stockholders and consumers.
I read your November 9th newsletter.
Pretty good try on defeating the Obama/Pelosi Healthcare bill in the House, but not enough networking. I believe you need to develop a more effective procedure to educate your more ignorant House associates. The "House Call" on Washington was a nice touch and something you need to support, but the heavy work is done in the House voting, and that's where you need to be more effective.
On the Fort Hood Tragedy and Veterans Day, these are small potatoes compared to what we need to save us all. Healthcare and Climate Control are clearly demonstrating how many aspects of the public are cooperating with government to drag us into Communism. It was interesting to note the anniversary of the Berlin Wall falling and what the news media had to say about it. Communism was mentioned, as well as the observation that the Wall fell from the inside, but there was no information on why it fell and the motivation for those insiders, who pushed it over. All of this history is being ignored as we blithely dance into Communism here in the US.
“Your Question of the Week”. Do you believe we need another economic stimulus package from the federal government to combat the 10.2% and rising unemployment rate? The answer to this one is "yes", but not in the form of dumping money into a rat hole as we have done previously. The high unemployment rate results from many years of neglect to private industry in the United States, as jobs were shipped overseas. A lot of our local production expertise has already been lost and equipment has been dismantled and junked. It will take many years to recover even in a favorable environment, which we do not have at the present time. The previously government established hindrances to local production still exist. A stimulus package must address those issues of removing various mandates on employment. Examples, high company taxes, penalty for not adhering to health insurance mandate, such as in the recently passed House Bill, minimum wage law, working hour limitations. In addition to removing the mandates, government needs to enforce regulations on banking and apply other financial controls in that industry, and enforce antitrust laws to improve competition. This latter would include eliminating interlocking directorships in major corporations, which is the primary basis for huge salaries and bonuses for executives, at the expense of stockholders and consumers.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Nuclear Weapons Threat
Open letter to Congress:
EIN News says, "Nuclear Security Framework 'In Tatters,' Outgoing Atomic Energy Agency Chief ElBaradei Says. The nuclear nonproliferation regime is failing in its aim to prevent the spread of devastating weapons around the world, the International Atomic Energy Agency's outgoing chief yesterday. (globalsecuritynewswire.org)".
This is one man's opinion, but he was in the best position to have obtained information on which to make the statement, and it is probably correct. At least it is consistent with the historical spread of technology. Almost all countries have automobiles, telephones, computers, etc. One can only delay the spread of technology. In the final analysis, everyone gets it.
There are two things we can do about the nuclear weapon spread. The first is to develop a workable "Star Wars system", so that we can intercept and destroy any incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying atomic warheads before they reach US soil.
However, we would still be vulnerable to overseas or overland delivery and detonation of an atomic weapon. The only reasonable protection we would have for overseas delivery is to develop a procedure whereby all ships are inspected before they leave foreign ports or when on the high seas. Similarly all conveyances would need to be inspected at US borders between Canada/US and Mexico/US
The more diligently we apply ourselves to these protection procedures, the greater success we are likely to have. We cannot control holdings of fissionable material in the hands of Russia and China. Our political/financial strength is insufficient and decreases every day. From another point of view, that could be good, since there will be less incentive to blow up a "poor" United States. The only probable deterrent for China and Russia would be our retaliation, which continues the MAD philosophy of mutual destruction.
EIN News says, "Nuclear Security Framework 'In Tatters,' Outgoing Atomic Energy Agency Chief ElBaradei Says. The nuclear nonproliferation regime is failing in its aim to prevent the spread of devastating weapons around the world, the International Atomic Energy Agency's outgoing chief yesterday. (globalsecuritynewswire.org)".
This is one man's opinion, but he was in the best position to have obtained information on which to make the statement, and it is probably correct. At least it is consistent with the historical spread of technology. Almost all countries have automobiles, telephones, computers, etc. One can only delay the spread of technology. In the final analysis, everyone gets it.
There are two things we can do about the nuclear weapon spread. The first is to develop a workable "Star Wars system", so that we can intercept and destroy any incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying atomic warheads before they reach US soil.
However, we would still be vulnerable to overseas or overland delivery and detonation of an atomic weapon. The only reasonable protection we would have for overseas delivery is to develop a procedure whereby all ships are inspected before they leave foreign ports or when on the high seas. Similarly all conveyances would need to be inspected at US borders between Canada/US and Mexico/US
The more diligently we apply ourselves to these protection procedures, the greater success we are likely to have. We cannot control holdings of fissionable material in the hands of Russia and China. Our political/financial strength is insufficient and decreases every day. From another point of view, that could be good, since there will be less incentive to blow up a "poor" United States. The only probable deterrent for China and Russia would be our retaliation, which continues the MAD philosophy of mutual destruction.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Religious Freedom
EIN News says, "European Court Bans Crucifixes in Italy's Classrooms. Italy has reacted furiously after the European Court of Human Rights ruled crucifixes should not be displayed in the country's schools. The landmark judgment could force a Europe-wide review of the use of religious symbols in state-run schools. (telegraph.co.uk).
This is the sort of thing big government does. World government, United Nations, European Union, North American Union, expanded US government. It's all the same thing. It will deprive you of your personal rights, including freedom of religious worship. This will occur no matter what the Constitution says.
To preserve your individual liberties, it will be necessary to vote down big government, including free stuff like healthcare, at every opportunity.
This is the sort of thing big government does. World government, United Nations, European Union, North American Union, expanded US government. It's all the same thing. It will deprive you of your personal rights, including freedom of religious worship. This will occur no matter what the Constitution says.
To preserve your individual liberties, it will be necessary to vote down big government, including free stuff like healthcare, at every opportunity.
US Costs for NATO in Europe
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Central Europe Needs NATO Forces, Polish Minister Says. Central Europe needs "strategic reassurance" from Washington and NATO forces should be placed in the region to underscore its value to the alliance, Poland's foreign minister said on Wednesday. The minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, said a visit last month to Poland and the Czech Republic by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, to ease concerns about Washington's revised missile defense plans, had been welcome, but military capabilities would be more convincing than words. (reuters.com).
You know from my previous communications that I question the motivations of any person who makes a statement.
My speculation on what the Polish Foreign Minister means to say is that he needs the US dollars involved in the presence of NATO forces, meaning US soldiers and the cost of their upkeep in Europe.
Why are we the supposed peacekeepers in Europe? The United Nations has been in operation for many many years. The European Union is less aged but demonstrating considerable power. For example, it has just said that the Italians may not have crucifixes in their schools.
I am sure that those two organizations are able to keep peace in Europe, without the presence of US dollars. They are now richer than the United States, with its astounding debt.
Let's start pulling US forces out of NATO in Europe and see who starts filling the gap. If it's a consolidated group, we can continue. If it's a single country, we may want to have second thoughts.
EIN News says, "Central Europe Needs NATO Forces, Polish Minister Says. Central Europe needs "strategic reassurance" from Washington and NATO forces should be placed in the region to underscore its value to the alliance, Poland's foreign minister said on Wednesday. The minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, said a visit last month to Poland and the Czech Republic by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, to ease concerns about Washington's revised missile defense plans, had been welcome, but military capabilities would be more convincing than words. (reuters.com).
You know from my previous communications that I question the motivations of any person who makes a statement.
My speculation on what the Polish Foreign Minister means to say is that he needs the US dollars involved in the presence of NATO forces, meaning US soldiers and the cost of their upkeep in Europe.
Why are we the supposed peacekeepers in Europe? The United Nations has been in operation for many many years. The European Union is less aged but demonstrating considerable power. For example, it has just said that the Italians may not have crucifixes in their schools.
I am sure that those two organizations are able to keep peace in Europe, without the presence of US dollars. They are now richer than the United States, with its astounding debt.
Let's start pulling US forces out of NATO in Europe and see who starts filling the gap. If it's a consolidated group, we can continue. If it's a single country, we may want to have second thoughts.
Free Telephones and Service
I just sent the following message to Sen. Hutchison:
Dear Sen. Hutchison,
Thank you for your reply concerning my request for information on why you had voted for free telephones and service for a segment of the American public.
I notice that you have not answered my question in your reply below. I also notice that you have copied several portions of text from the USF webpage.
I repeat my question on how you and your associate senators can justify a Marxist program for redistribution of wealth in this Republic of the United States. You may be confused into thinking that the cost of this program comes out of thin air, since I notice you quote from the USF webpage as follows:
"All telephone service providers are required to contribute to the USF according to a formula based on interstate calls, but they are not required to pass the fees on to the consumer directly."
In the above statement, you and USF imply that the big, bad service providers are responsible for any increase in my telephone bills, through direct charges or taxes. Not so. These companies are in business to make a profit. Not to give away money through free equipment and service. You make the mandates, and I end up paying.
Free telephones and service is welfare. If I want to contribute to welfare, it should be my option. You should not force it upon me and believe it is justifiable because I am a compassionate person and feel that all underprivileged and poor people should have access to a telephone. I don't feel that way at all. A telephone is a convenience for the private person. In order to have access to a convenience, he needs to pay for it. Not expect someone else to pay for it. It may even be an incentive for him to do some work, so that he can pay for his telephone.
Let's quit all these giveaway programs. You're on the wrong track. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity. Not a land of free stuff.
Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison [mailto:senator@hutchison.senate.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:58 PM
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subject: Constituent Response From Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) Universal Service Fund. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
The FCC established the Universal Service Fund (USF) to help bring telephone access to low-income Americans. The USF compensates telephone companies that provide service to rural, insular, and high-cost areas, and it also subsidizes internet access for schools and libraries. All telephone service providers are required to contribute to the USF according to a formula based on interstate calls, but they are not required to pass the fees on to the consumer directly or to list it as a separate item when billing. Some companies charge a percentage of the total bill, some a flat fee, and some do not distinguish the USF fee from general service.
In December of 2002, the FCC made changes in the USF contribution mechanism including a decision to roughly double the contribution of wireless providers. The FCC believes that wireless companies underestimate their contributions because new options like internet phones and no-roaming plans make it difficult to identify interstate commerce. Higher contribution from wireless companies is expected to generate enough revenue to provide stability for the USF program while the FCC continues to assess other funding mechanisms. Should legislation on this issue come before the Senate, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.
I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
Dear Sen. Hutchison,
Thank you for your reply concerning my request for information on why you had voted for free telephones and service for a segment of the American public.
I notice that you have not answered my question in your reply below. I also notice that you have copied several portions of text from the USF webpage.
I repeat my question on how you and your associate senators can justify a Marxist program for redistribution of wealth in this Republic of the United States. You may be confused into thinking that the cost of this program comes out of thin air, since I notice you quote from the USF webpage as follows:
"All telephone service providers are required to contribute to the USF according to a formula based on interstate calls, but they are not required to pass the fees on to the consumer directly."
In the above statement, you and USF imply that the big, bad service providers are responsible for any increase in my telephone bills, through direct charges or taxes. Not so. These companies are in business to make a profit. Not to give away money through free equipment and service. You make the mandates, and I end up paying.
Free telephones and service is welfare. If I want to contribute to welfare, it should be my option. You should not force it upon me and believe it is justifiable because I am a compassionate person and feel that all underprivileged and poor people should have access to a telephone. I don't feel that way at all. A telephone is a convenience for the private person. In order to have access to a convenience, he needs to pay for it. Not expect someone else to pay for it. It may even be an incentive for him to do some work, so that he can pay for his telephone.
Let's quit all these giveaway programs. You're on the wrong track. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity. Not a land of free stuff.
Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison [mailto:senator@hutchison.senate.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:58 PM
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subject: Constituent Response From Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) Universal Service Fund. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
The FCC established the Universal Service Fund (USF) to help bring telephone access to low-income Americans. The USF compensates telephone companies that provide service to rural, insular, and high-cost areas, and it also subsidizes internet access for schools and libraries. All telephone service providers are required to contribute to the USF according to a formula based on interstate calls, but they are not required to pass the fees on to the consumer directly or to list it as a separate item when billing. Some companies charge a percentage of the total bill, some a flat fee, and some do not distinguish the USF fee from general service.
In December of 2002, the FCC made changes in the USF contribution mechanism including a decision to roughly double the contribution of wireless providers. The FCC believes that wireless companies underestimate their contributions because new options like internet phones and no-roaming plans make it difficult to identify interstate commerce. Higher contribution from wireless companies is expected to generate enough revenue to provide stability for the USF program while the FCC continues to assess other funding mechanisms. Should legislation on this issue come before the Senate, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.
I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
Monday, November 2, 2009
Radical Liberals in Government
The following is an e-mail received from a friend, with whom I had been having a discussion on idealism and the actions of radical liberals in government:
"Certainly, most of the local liberals I know and many. such as Carol, are loyal Americans. Many have fought for our country. Some even show
compassion for others using their own money which is totally contrary to most liberals in power. I can site names of some of the most compassionate
liberal people who attend our church, are loyal Americans, and would never knowingly vote to destroy our country. They are passionate about
their beliefs. They are also often blinded. What was considered liberal even 20 years ago in most of America is not at all what we see today.
Liberal Republicans also now lay with the most extreme liberals of the mainstream Democratic party. The 60's radicals, who were terrorists wanting to overthrow America, were still outside of the mainstream Democratic party. In fact, in the 50's through the 90's Democrats who
controlled their party in the South were more conservative than the mainstream country club Republicans back East. Reagan was elected in a
landslide that included a substantial number of Democrats.
I used to agree with you about the more dedicated liberals, who are now in power, not believing that their actions will destroy America. However, after
reading their own words and viewing a number of their statements in recent months concerning some of the items I included in my original comments you mentioned that you wanted to post to your blog, I have come to accept these people at their own words. Some of them really do believe that
America should lose its sovereignty and that we are evil. These same people praise Mao and the current crazies from Iran and Cuba and the most crooked leaders around the world. Obama certainly studied at the feet of anti-American revolutionaries. The Czars Obama has appointed have clearly stated their mission for one-world government and elimination of most of the
rights from the Bill of Rights. Observers from other countries, who are still democracies, have observed that Obama envisions himself as being a
world leader (dictator). Moveon.org has also made its goals clear. These organizations have tremendous (illegal financial) support from outside
the US and those folks are not pro-America under any circumstances. There is a reason that hundreds of millions of dollars flow into Democratic coffers from China and the Middle East to support folks that openly advocate against
America's interests. When someone powerful who have a known antagonistic view toward us says something, I believe them and do not try to rationalize that they really did not mean it, when their comments suggest goals that include a weaker America, our defeat on the battlefield, and our outright destruction.
The founders of our country were revolutionaries, but their startling thoughts included the founding principals of individual liberty and limited
government that were at odds with the royalty and world power structures of the 1700's Today's revolutionaries have made it abundantly clear that they want to over-throw those founding principals. Just listen to their words.
Glen Beck on Fox news has simply been playing video clip after video clip of them making their objectives clear. They make no bones about their effort to spend the US into a crisis to absolutely destroy our society. They make no bones about never wasting a crisis to cease power. They make no pretense of respecting the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and openly discuss ways to eliminate these fundamental rights of property, free speech, or right to bear arms. You hear demands to redistribute wealth almost daily. If you look very hard, you will find extensive discussion that goes back to stated objectives about spending any country into a crisis in order
to create a virtual dictatorship even when the words for dictator are altered, but the meaning is clear.
While I agree that people like Carol do not necessarily want to destroy America, she certainly believes that our country should be forever reshaped and that religion should be stamped out. She is a big supporter of the ACLU in that mission. She is part of the group that wants to
fundamentally change our culture to the point that it can never come back from their socialist paradigm. I also believe the founding fathers were
correct when they stated that a democracy could not function in the absence of Christianity, while also opposing a state religion.
Even LBJ made that clear. After introducing the war on poverty, he then turned to his supporters and stated that this would finally put the
Democrats into absolute power for 50 to 100 years. He was a brilliant and relatively un-principaled man, who knew exactly what he was doing. He succeeded in creating an underclass. His programs also create massive debt and
dependence for generations. Though LBJ was a liberal, I do not think that he was for destroying America. But I do believe, from their own
words that the current extreme leadership does want to transform our society and to keep it transformed. They must take our sovereignty. It matters not which ones do not simply drink the Koolaid. The result is the same and the danger is imminent.
I am becoming more alarmed every day, but I do hope and pray that my conclusions are wrong.
"Certainly, most of the local liberals I know and many. such as Carol, are loyal Americans. Many have fought for our country. Some even show
compassion for others using their own money which is totally contrary to most liberals in power. I can site names of some of the most compassionate
liberal people who attend our church, are loyal Americans, and would never knowingly vote to destroy our country. They are passionate about
their beliefs. They are also often blinded. What was considered liberal even 20 years ago in most of America is not at all what we see today.
Liberal Republicans also now lay with the most extreme liberals of the mainstream Democratic party. The 60's radicals, who were terrorists wanting to overthrow America, were still outside of the mainstream Democratic party. In fact, in the 50's through the 90's Democrats who
controlled their party in the South were more conservative than the mainstream country club Republicans back East. Reagan was elected in a
landslide that included a substantial number of Democrats.
I used to agree with you about the more dedicated liberals, who are now in power, not believing that their actions will destroy America. However, after
reading their own words and viewing a number of their statements in recent months concerning some of the items I included in my original comments you mentioned that you wanted to post to your blog, I have come to accept these people at their own words. Some of them really do believe that
America should lose its sovereignty and that we are evil. These same people praise Mao and the current crazies from Iran and Cuba and the most crooked leaders around the world. Obama certainly studied at the feet of anti-American revolutionaries. The Czars Obama has appointed have clearly stated their mission for one-world government and elimination of most of the
rights from the Bill of Rights. Observers from other countries, who are still democracies, have observed that Obama envisions himself as being a
world leader (dictator). Moveon.org has also made its goals clear. These organizations have tremendous (illegal financial) support from outside
the US and those folks are not pro-America under any circumstances. There is a reason that hundreds of millions of dollars flow into Democratic coffers from China and the Middle East to support folks that openly advocate against
America's interests. When someone powerful who have a known antagonistic view toward us says something, I believe them and do not try to rationalize that they really did not mean it, when their comments suggest goals that include a weaker America, our defeat on the battlefield, and our outright destruction.
The founders of our country were revolutionaries, but their startling thoughts included the founding principals of individual liberty and limited
government that were at odds with the royalty and world power structures of the 1700's Today's revolutionaries have made it abundantly clear that they want to over-throw those founding principals. Just listen to their words.
Glen Beck on Fox news has simply been playing video clip after video clip of them making their objectives clear. They make no bones about their effort to spend the US into a crisis to absolutely destroy our society. They make no bones about never wasting a crisis to cease power. They make no pretense of respecting the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and openly discuss ways to eliminate these fundamental rights of property, free speech, or right to bear arms. You hear demands to redistribute wealth almost daily. If you look very hard, you will find extensive discussion that goes back to stated objectives about spending any country into a crisis in order
to create a virtual dictatorship even when the words for dictator are altered, but the meaning is clear.
While I agree that people like Carol do not necessarily want to destroy America, she certainly believes that our country should be forever reshaped and that religion should be stamped out. She is a big supporter of the ACLU in that mission. She is part of the group that wants to
fundamentally change our culture to the point that it can never come back from their socialist paradigm. I also believe the founding fathers were
correct when they stated that a democracy could not function in the absence of Christianity, while also opposing a state religion.
Even LBJ made that clear. After introducing the war on poverty, he then turned to his supporters and stated that this would finally put the
Democrats into absolute power for 50 to 100 years. He was a brilliant and relatively un-principaled man, who knew exactly what he was doing. He succeeded in creating an underclass. His programs also create massive debt and
dependence for generations. Though LBJ was a liberal, I do not think that he was for destroying America. But I do believe, from their own
words that the current extreme leadership does want to transform our society and to keep it transformed. They must take our sovereignty. It matters not which ones do not simply drink the Koolaid. The result is the same and the danger is imminent.
I am becoming more alarmed every day, but I do hope and pray that my conclusions are wrong.
Friday, October 30, 2009
E-mail to Congress:
A friend sent me this website address: https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx
It describes a free cell phone and airtime each month for income-eligible customers. I followed it to its source.
It is part of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) program, which is known as the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) and was set up under Congressional mandate. Therefore, I need not tell you about it, since you and your Congressional Associates started it. It is said to provide discounts on basic monthly service and initial installation or activation fees for telephone service at the primary residence to income-eligible consumers. There is a minor detail difference in that the advertisement mentions cell phones, while the FCC implies landline phones. However, we consider that a minor factor.
The main question is who pays for this CONVENIENCE to the "poor and underprivileged"? It could be government with the general taxpayers footing the bill. That would be bad enough, but the specific costs are all borne as a group by all telephone users, except the "poor and underprivileged", who pay taxes on their phone usage. The mandate is that all telecommunications service providers must contribute to the federal USF based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. Telecommunications service providers then pass the costs on to their customers.
I just checked my telephone bill. My telephone taxes exceed my cost of service by 134%. Rather high, don't you think?
Should I congratulate you personally or the Congress as a group for this major move in contributing to the establishment of a Marxist society?
A friend sent me this website address: https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx
It describes a free cell phone and airtime each month for income-eligible customers. I followed it to its source.
It is part of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) program, which is known as the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) and was set up under Congressional mandate. Therefore, I need not tell you about it, since you and your Congressional Associates started it. It is said to provide discounts on basic monthly service and initial installation or activation fees for telephone service at the primary residence to income-eligible consumers. There is a minor detail difference in that the advertisement mentions cell phones, while the FCC implies landline phones. However, we consider that a minor factor.
The main question is who pays for this CONVENIENCE to the "poor and underprivileged"? It could be government with the general taxpayers footing the bill. That would be bad enough, but the specific costs are all borne as a group by all telephone users, except the "poor and underprivileged", who pay taxes on their phone usage. The mandate is that all telecommunications service providers must contribute to the federal USF based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. Telecommunications service providers then pass the costs on to their customers.
I just checked my telephone bill. My telephone taxes exceed my cost of service by 134%. Rather high, don't you think?
Should I congratulate you personally or the Congress as a group for this major move in contributing to the establishment of a Marxist society?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill into Law
E-mail to Congress:
CNN says, "Obama signs hate crimes bill into law. President Obama signs the $680 billion defense spending bill that includes the hate crimes law. Law is attached to $680 billion defense authorization bill".
As one reads further, it becomes clear that the law makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. We can forgive CNN for eliminating the homosexual aspect from its headline, because we know that CNN is generally considered a socialistic rag. Whether assault of an individual because of homosexuality is a federal offense or not is not my major concern. We already have local laws to control assault of any individual, homosexual or not.
My main point is to chastise you folks in Congress for not having the guts to stand up or down on a specific situation. If you wanted a law making it a federal offense to assault the homosexual, why didn't you say so? Why did you attach it to a defense authorization bill, which has no bearing on any homosexual law.
This is the sort of thing that not only creates public distrust of Congress but also creates downright antagonism.
CNN says, "Obama signs hate crimes bill into law. President Obama signs the $680 billion defense spending bill that includes the hate crimes law. Law is attached to $680 billion defense authorization bill".
As one reads further, it becomes clear that the law makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. We can forgive CNN for eliminating the homosexual aspect from its headline, because we know that CNN is generally considered a socialistic rag. Whether assault of an individual because of homosexuality is a federal offense or not is not my major concern. We already have local laws to control assault of any individual, homosexual or not.
My main point is to chastise you folks in Congress for not having the guts to stand up or down on a specific situation. If you wanted a law making it a federal offense to assault the homosexual, why didn't you say so? Why did you attach it to a defense authorization bill, which has no bearing on any homosexual law.
This is the sort of thing that not only creates public distrust of Congress but also creates downright antagonism.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Bailout Company Executives
It is said on TV that the Obama Administration intends to cut the executive salaries of bailout companies by 50%. This has created a lot of discussion on talk radio and elsewhere.
Government should not have originally bailed out these private companies. However, since the bailouts are an accomplished fact, Government has a dictatorial right to cut executive salaries to whatever level it desires. Congress has approved the bailouts and is part of the dictatorial process. To do this properly, previous bonuses and gains from stock options or other manipulations must also be recovered.
It is also said that the major objection to proceeding with such financial benefit cuts is that good people will leave the bailout companies. Somehow it has escaped the notice of most analysts that there are no good executives in the bailout companies. The companies, such as AIG, have failed as a result of the ineptitude of the executives. If they wish to go somewhere else, good riddance. Any other company directors would be out of their minds in hiring these failures.
Government should not have originally bailed out these private companies. However, since the bailouts are an accomplished fact, Government has a dictatorial right to cut executive salaries to whatever level it desires. Congress has approved the bailouts and is part of the dictatorial process. To do this properly, previous bonuses and gains from stock options or other manipulations must also be recovered.
It is also said that the major objection to proceeding with such financial benefit cuts is that good people will leave the bailout companies. Somehow it has escaped the notice of most analysts that there are no good executives in the bailout companies. The companies, such as AIG, have failed as a result of the ineptitude of the executives. If they wish to go somewhere else, good riddance. Any other company directors would be out of their minds in hiring these failures.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Olympia Snowe and Party Misfits
E-mail to Congress:
This communication is intended to recognize the possibilities for House and Senate members to form alliances across party lines on specific bills. It is also intended to inform Republican and Democratic Party voters of the inherent dangers in voting a straight Republican or Democratic ticket.
Republicans are generally characterized as fiscal conservatives, which means they generally like to spend less money on less questionable projects then do Democrats. However, there are various members of the House and Senate, who parade under the name of One Party and yet adhere to the principles of the Other Party. A typical example is Olympia Snowe, who is a closet Democrat. She parades as a Republican, but her closet activities consistently show adherence to the modern definition of liberal Democratic principles; e.g. big government and big government spending programs. Those members of Congress who wish to work with smaller government and more fiscal conservatism should never attempt to work with Olympia Snowe. She is a dyed in the wool Liberal Democrat.
Conversely, there are within the Democratic Party a number of classified Democrats, who hold very conservative views on fiscal responsibility. This attitude would automatically limit government size and reduce government spending, if a sufficient number of such believers were able to take control of Congress. If so-called Republicans and Democrats were to minimize party affiliation, it would be possible for a coalition of fiscal conservatives to take such control. There would obviously be a need to resolve differences of opinion in the coalition, but such resolution should be secondary to the main point of taking control and establishing fiscal responsibility.
This communication is intended to recognize the possibilities for House and Senate members to form alliances across party lines on specific bills. It is also intended to inform Republican and Democratic Party voters of the inherent dangers in voting a straight Republican or Democratic ticket.
Republicans are generally characterized as fiscal conservatives, which means they generally like to spend less money on less questionable projects then do Democrats. However, there are various members of the House and Senate, who parade under the name of One Party and yet adhere to the principles of the Other Party. A typical example is Olympia Snowe, who is a closet Democrat. She parades as a Republican, but her closet activities consistently show adherence to the modern definition of liberal Democratic principles; e.g. big government and big government spending programs. Those members of Congress who wish to work with smaller government and more fiscal conservatism should never attempt to work with Olympia Snowe. She is a dyed in the wool Liberal Democrat.
Conversely, there are within the Democratic Party a number of classified Democrats, who hold very conservative views on fiscal responsibility. This attitude would automatically limit government size and reduce government spending, if a sufficient number of such believers were able to take control of Congress. If so-called Republicans and Democrats were to minimize party affiliation, it would be possible for a coalition of fiscal conservatives to take such control. There would obviously be a need to resolve differences of opinion in the coalition, but such resolution should be secondary to the main point of taking control and establishing fiscal responsibility.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Dictators
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "EU Commission Chief Barroso Fears Powerful 'European President'. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has sided with smaller member states in trying to restrict the role of the proposed president of the European Council, a new post created by the Lisbon Treaty. Addressing the European Parliament, Mr Barroso chastised MEPs for referring to the post as "president of Europe." (euobserver.com)".
The EU apparently sees the handwriting on the wall by looking to the United States. They see the development of Pres. Obama as a dictator in the US and want to thwart a similar development in the EU. It seems that the EU is not partial to dictators, remembering Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.
Congress still has an opportunity to limit the powers of Pres. Obama, before he becomes a full-fledged dictator. Please accept the challenge now. Tomorrow may be too late.
EIN News says, "EU Commission Chief Barroso Fears Powerful 'European President'. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has sided with smaller member states in trying to restrict the role of the proposed president of the European Council, a new post created by the Lisbon Treaty. Addressing the European Parliament, Mr Barroso chastised MEPs for referring to the post as "president of Europe." (euobserver.com)".
The EU apparently sees the handwriting on the wall by looking to the United States. They see the development of Pres. Obama as a dictator in the US and want to thwart a similar development in the EU. It seems that the EU is not partial to dictators, remembering Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.
Congress still has an opportunity to limit the powers of Pres. Obama, before he becomes a full-fledged dictator. Please accept the challenge now. Tomorrow may be too late.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
World Famine
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "World Must Invest $83 Billion a Year to Be Fed in 2050, UN Food Agency Forecasts. The world needs to invest $83 billion a year in agriculture in developing countries to feed 9.1 billion people in 2050, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation said on Thursday. World agriculture needs massive investments to raise overall output 70 percent over the next 41 years, including almost doubled output in the developing countries to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050, the FAO said. (reuters.com)".
This one involves global warming, healthcare and any other ridiculous notions put forth by eggheads and political opportunists. However, we can analyze this potential famine problem relatively easily.
Developing countries will be primarily unable to help themselves. If they could, we wouldn't have as much famine there as we have at present. This means developed countries would need food handouts, which would only be a temporary solution. The better long-term solution would be for US companies to involve themselves and the locals in food production in the underdeveloped countries. The alternative is to let the locals starve. While that may be a reasonable approach, compassion of the US public will likely not allow it.
If Congress continues with climate control and health care, the cost will create a tremendous burden on the US government, which will force additional currency printing, lead to further inflation, and a significantly decreased value for the US dollar. To partially avoid this, the federal government will likely increase corporate taxes. Simultaneously, the burden of climate control cost, through installation of carbon dioxide sequestration equipment and increased employee health-care costs will hamstring corporate efforts to engage in other developments, such as investment for food production in foreign countries.
Alternatively, if Congress is willing to face the probability of underdeveloped country starvation, the obvious answers are: 1.) Get the US fiscal house in order by greatly reducing federal spending, and 2.) Make it easier for businesses to continue investment and development by not burdening them with global warming and healthcare, and reducing other restrictions wherever possible.
EIN News says, "World Must Invest $83 Billion a Year to Be Fed in 2050, UN Food Agency Forecasts. The world needs to invest $83 billion a year in agriculture in developing countries to feed 9.1 billion people in 2050, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation said on Thursday. World agriculture needs massive investments to raise overall output 70 percent over the next 41 years, including almost doubled output in the developing countries to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050, the FAO said. (reuters.com)".
This one involves global warming, healthcare and any other ridiculous notions put forth by eggheads and political opportunists. However, we can analyze this potential famine problem relatively easily.
Developing countries will be primarily unable to help themselves. If they could, we wouldn't have as much famine there as we have at present. This means developed countries would need food handouts, which would only be a temporary solution. The better long-term solution would be for US companies to involve themselves and the locals in food production in the underdeveloped countries. The alternative is to let the locals starve. While that may be a reasonable approach, compassion of the US public will likely not allow it.
If Congress continues with climate control and health care, the cost will create a tremendous burden on the US government, which will force additional currency printing, lead to further inflation, and a significantly decreased value for the US dollar. To partially avoid this, the federal government will likely increase corporate taxes. Simultaneously, the burden of climate control cost, through installation of carbon dioxide sequestration equipment and increased employee health-care costs will hamstring corporate efforts to engage in other developments, such as investment for food production in foreign countries.
Alternatively, if Congress is willing to face the probability of underdeveloped country starvation, the obvious answers are: 1.) Get the US fiscal house in order by greatly reducing federal spending, and 2.) Make it easier for businesses to continue investment and development by not burdening them with global warming and healthcare, and reducing other restrictions wherever possible.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The EU As a World Power
EIN News says, "EU Draws Up Plans to Establish Itself As 'World Power'. The European Union has drawn up secret plans to establish itself as a global power in its own right with the authority to sign international agreements on behalf of member states. (telegraph.co.uk)".
This is rather a silly statement. The EU is already a World Power. However, I believe the main point of the EU is to increase its "federal" power at the expense of the individual countries. This is similar to what is going on in the US, with Obama's program to establish a dictatorial federal government and minimize power to the individual states.
Let us hope that the EU Administration is successful in their endeavor, because Europe will then have an oligarchic/socialist government, which has historically been known to fail. If the US follows the same route, it will also fail.
However if the US follows a policy of returning to fiscal restraint, with accent on capitalism and minimizing federal government, the US can retain its position of being a world power.
This is rather a silly statement. The EU is already a World Power. However, I believe the main point of the EU is to increase its "federal" power at the expense of the individual countries. This is similar to what is going on in the US, with Obama's program to establish a dictatorial federal government and minimize power to the individual states.
Let us hope that the EU Administration is successful in their endeavor, because Europe will then have an oligarchic/socialist government, which has historically been known to fail. If the US follows the same route, it will also fail.
However if the US follows a policy of returning to fiscal restraint, with accent on capitalism and minimizing federal government, the US can retain its position of being a world power.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
US Unemployment
TV news today said the Obama Administration is disappointed with the previous stimulus packages having had on reducing unemployment. The unemployment rate is almost 10% and trending up. The Obama Administration had expected the stimulus packages to reduce it to 8%. Therefore, the Administration is considering another stimulus package.
In a capitalistic society, industry and commerce have traditionally made the jobs. Government employment has been small by comparison. While we may be on the verge of socialism/capitalism, the bulk of our economy is still capitalistic. Therefore, we need to look at the private sector for any significant job improvement.
For 60 years, government administrations and legislatures at federal, state, and municipal levels have continued to pass restrictive rules and regulations against business management. During that time, there has been no effort to reduce such rules and regulations in order to encourage business development and its associated hiring of employees. We have now reached a stage where private capital has little to no incentive to engage in business activity, because of the hassle that is involved in so doing, without likelihood of significant profit. If we want to reduce unemployment, now is the time to do an about-face with respect to government attitude toward business. It is time to strengthen the goose that lays the golden eggs, rather allow it to remain in a weakened condition.
An organization known as the World Bank Group (http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/) ranks all significant countries of the world in their ease to do business. The ratings are by point score, with the best being a minimum number of points. The United States ranks fourth, behind Singapore, New Zealand, and China/Hong Kong. The position of the United States is comparatively pretty good. Total ratings are based on minimum point scores in 10 categories. They are: Starting a business; Dealing with construction permits; Employing workers; Registering property; Getting credit; Protecting investors; Paying taxes; Trading across borders; Enforcing contracts; and Closing a business.
Remembering that 1 is best in the point system, the United States has 61 points on Paying taxes, 25 points on Dealing with construction permits, 18 points on Trading across borders, 15 points on Closing a business, and 12 points on Registering property. Other countries have ratings as well as 1 in those categories. These would be the areas to concentrate on, with respect to reducing restrictions and regulations at all levels of government.
Simultaneously, it must be remembered that these are comparative figures and even though the United States may have a low point score in some areas, such as Employing workers, there is still room for improvement, as we concentrate on reducing unemployment. This might involve: 1.) Eliminate government programs promoting unions, 2.) Reduce the minimum wage from the present $7.25 per hour to the previous $6.55 per hour, 3.) Avoid imposing any business requirement to supply health care or health care insurance to its employees.
A monetary stimulus package will likely do nothing to reduce unemployment, as we have seen with previous monetary stimulus packages. The stimulus package that will do the job will be a combination of reduced restrictions on US business operations.
In a capitalistic society, industry and commerce have traditionally made the jobs. Government employment has been small by comparison. While we may be on the verge of socialism/capitalism, the bulk of our economy is still capitalistic. Therefore, we need to look at the private sector for any significant job improvement.
For 60 years, government administrations and legislatures at federal, state, and municipal levels have continued to pass restrictive rules and regulations against business management. During that time, there has been no effort to reduce such rules and regulations in order to encourage business development and its associated hiring of employees. We have now reached a stage where private capital has little to no incentive to engage in business activity, because of the hassle that is involved in so doing, without likelihood of significant profit. If we want to reduce unemployment, now is the time to do an about-face with respect to government attitude toward business. It is time to strengthen the goose that lays the golden eggs, rather allow it to remain in a weakened condition.
An organization known as the World Bank Group (http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/) ranks all significant countries of the world in their ease to do business. The ratings are by point score, with the best being a minimum number of points. The United States ranks fourth, behind Singapore, New Zealand, and China/Hong Kong. The position of the United States is comparatively pretty good. Total ratings are based on minimum point scores in 10 categories. They are: Starting a business; Dealing with construction permits; Employing workers; Registering property; Getting credit; Protecting investors; Paying taxes; Trading across borders; Enforcing contracts; and Closing a business.
Remembering that 1 is best in the point system, the United States has 61 points on Paying taxes, 25 points on Dealing with construction permits, 18 points on Trading across borders, 15 points on Closing a business, and 12 points on Registering property. Other countries have ratings as well as 1 in those categories. These would be the areas to concentrate on, with respect to reducing restrictions and regulations at all levels of government.
Simultaneously, it must be remembered that these are comparative figures and even though the United States may have a low point score in some areas, such as Employing workers, there is still room for improvement, as we concentrate on reducing unemployment. This might involve: 1.) Eliminate government programs promoting unions, 2.) Reduce the minimum wage from the present $7.25 per hour to the previous $6.55 per hour, 3.) Avoid imposing any business requirement to supply health care or health care insurance to its employees.
A monetary stimulus package will likely do nothing to reduce unemployment, as we have seen with previous monetary stimulus packages. The stimulus package that will do the job will be a combination of reduced restrictions on US business operations.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Unemployment
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Eurozone Unemployment Rate Continues Rising. August's seasonally adjusted rate rose to 9.6%, compared with 9.5% in the previous month, official figures show. The number of people without a job in the eurozone is now 15.2 million. Despite the fact that many eurozone economies are recovering from recession, economists expect unemployment rates to continue rising. (bbc.co.uk)".
The slight rise and fall of unemployment from month-to-month, in Europe, the US, or anywhere in the world, is not of particular significance. The major consideration is a philosophical/societal consideration of unemployment compared to employment at the present time and what the future holds. I agree with economists that expect unemployment rates to continue rising.
The reason for an expected future rise in unemployment is simple. Companies that produce goods and services are motivated to increase profits. One of the best ways to increase profits is to use technological improvements that effectively decrease the involvement of human operators. As companies continue to become more efficient, they will continue to reduce the number of man-hours required to produce a particular widget or service unit.
A natural force to combat such unemployment is opportunity for production of new goods and services, which will be bought by the general public. However the general public has only so much money to spend on such new goods and services, and in so doing may also have to give up other goods and services which they have been previously using. This establishes a kind of balance, but the general advantage goes to a slight decrease in unemployment through these new opportunities.
Another force to combat such unemployment is to give goods and services to the "less fortunate", whether they be local or far-reaching intercontinental. This is a socialistic concept with great advantage to recipients but disadvantage to the givers or grantors, especially if they are the general public of a government with such high altruistic aspirations. Obviously, this approach has its disadvantage in that there is no increase in goods and services. It is merely a redistribution of wealth.
Of these two possibilities, the opportunity for production of new goods and services has the most potential. However, with the major problem of tremendous unemployment, we need an equivalent tremendous production of new goods and services. This will require a redefinition of goods and services, more toward the approach that previously existed with the development of the international railroad system or production of steel. In both those cases, private industry was able to assemble the required assets to do the job. More recently, corporate philosophy has been much more timid, through governmental restrictions.
In essence, we need major projects to absorb the unemployed. In the absence of such projects, the unemployed make their own jobs, as we have seen in Los Angeles and Chicago gangs using a growth industry of drugs and prostitution. Some quick brainstorming brings to mind several possibilities, but each of these possibilities needs to be evaluated on whether its success results not only in reducing unemployment, but also making a positive contribution of improved living conditions and lifestyle for a large number of people. For example, construction of a pyramid, such as those previously built in Egypt, would consume massive amounts of labor to decrease unemployment, but would have no positive effect on improving living conditions and lifestyle.
Conversely, large areas of the country are periodically subjected to periods of drought and flood. We have previously had massive programs of flood control, such as Bonneville and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), but there remains much more to be done. The Southwest from Oklahoma through Arizona has annual rainfall, which classifies it as an arid region. It has the potential of huge agricultural production, if it had sufficient irrigation. There are huge quantities of water available in the North Midwest, in the form of the Great Lakes. That water is continually replenished through substantial rainfall. The quantity of fresh water flowing from the Niagara River to the ocean is tremendous. A huge irrigation project to divert some of that water to the Southwest would employ great numbers of people. Not only in the construction but in subsequent agricultural production, processing, and transportation. The Southwest has the potential of becoming a second breadbasket of the world, right after the Midwestern states.
Consider also that had during the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) employed many young men. This was a government operation at the time, because there was no private support available. However, the idea still has merit, with government cooperating where possible with private industry to engage in desirable construction projects. This might even include the irrigation program, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. When such young men are gainfully employed, they have little desire engage in gang warfare, drug operations, and programs to destroy the establishment.
Think about it. Pay particular attention to the need for grandiose projects. If the Romans had reason and success in building an aqueduct system in the Middle East, should we ignore that leadership?
EIN News says, "Eurozone Unemployment Rate Continues Rising. August's seasonally adjusted rate rose to 9.6%, compared with 9.5% in the previous month, official figures show. The number of people without a job in the eurozone is now 15.2 million. Despite the fact that many eurozone economies are recovering from recession, economists expect unemployment rates to continue rising. (bbc.co.uk)".
The slight rise and fall of unemployment from month-to-month, in Europe, the US, or anywhere in the world, is not of particular significance. The major consideration is a philosophical/societal consideration of unemployment compared to employment at the present time and what the future holds. I agree with economists that expect unemployment rates to continue rising.
The reason for an expected future rise in unemployment is simple. Companies that produce goods and services are motivated to increase profits. One of the best ways to increase profits is to use technological improvements that effectively decrease the involvement of human operators. As companies continue to become more efficient, they will continue to reduce the number of man-hours required to produce a particular widget or service unit.
A natural force to combat such unemployment is opportunity for production of new goods and services, which will be bought by the general public. However the general public has only so much money to spend on such new goods and services, and in so doing may also have to give up other goods and services which they have been previously using. This establishes a kind of balance, but the general advantage goes to a slight decrease in unemployment through these new opportunities.
Another force to combat such unemployment is to give goods and services to the "less fortunate", whether they be local or far-reaching intercontinental. This is a socialistic concept with great advantage to recipients but disadvantage to the givers or grantors, especially if they are the general public of a government with such high altruistic aspirations. Obviously, this approach has its disadvantage in that there is no increase in goods and services. It is merely a redistribution of wealth.
Of these two possibilities, the opportunity for production of new goods and services has the most potential. However, with the major problem of tremendous unemployment, we need an equivalent tremendous production of new goods and services. This will require a redefinition of goods and services, more toward the approach that previously existed with the development of the international railroad system or production of steel. In both those cases, private industry was able to assemble the required assets to do the job. More recently, corporate philosophy has been much more timid, through governmental restrictions.
In essence, we need major projects to absorb the unemployed. In the absence of such projects, the unemployed make their own jobs, as we have seen in Los Angeles and Chicago gangs using a growth industry of drugs and prostitution. Some quick brainstorming brings to mind several possibilities, but each of these possibilities needs to be evaluated on whether its success results not only in reducing unemployment, but also making a positive contribution of improved living conditions and lifestyle for a large number of people. For example, construction of a pyramid, such as those previously built in Egypt, would consume massive amounts of labor to decrease unemployment, but would have no positive effect on improving living conditions and lifestyle.
Conversely, large areas of the country are periodically subjected to periods of drought and flood. We have previously had massive programs of flood control, such as Bonneville and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), but there remains much more to be done. The Southwest from Oklahoma through Arizona has annual rainfall, which classifies it as an arid region. It has the potential of huge agricultural production, if it had sufficient irrigation. There are huge quantities of water available in the North Midwest, in the form of the Great Lakes. That water is continually replenished through substantial rainfall. The quantity of fresh water flowing from the Niagara River to the ocean is tremendous. A huge irrigation project to divert some of that water to the Southwest would employ great numbers of people. Not only in the construction but in subsequent agricultural production, processing, and transportation. The Southwest has the potential of becoming a second breadbasket of the world, right after the Midwestern states.
Consider also that had during the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) employed many young men. This was a government operation at the time, because there was no private support available. However, the idea still has merit, with government cooperating where possible with private industry to engage in desirable construction projects. This might even include the irrigation program, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. When such young men are gainfully employed, they have little desire engage in gang warfare, drug operations, and programs to destroy the establishment.
Think about it. Pay particular attention to the need for grandiose projects. If the Romans had reason and success in building an aqueduct system in the Middle East, should we ignore that leadership?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
House Representative's Newsletter
E-mail to House of Representative:
Dear Randy,
I read your September 28 Roundup Newsletter.
On the matter of "Washington’s Out-of-Control Spending Habits", congratulations on your amendment. However you are whistling in the dark when you try to do these things alone. Look to the Blue Dogs for support and be willing to do a little compromising.
On the matter of "Shining Light on President’s Czars", congratulations on introducing H.R. 3613. It's nice to tell the people about it, but we need more information on how effective it is. For example, how many other representatives do you have to support it? What are you doing to gain additional support?
I would like to also suggest that you spend less time on incidental items. For example, you have devoted as much space in your newsletter to "October Crime Prevention Month" as you have to the other two items, which are at least 10 times more important.
Dear Randy,
I read your September 28 Roundup Newsletter.
On the matter of "Washington’s Out-of-Control Spending Habits", congratulations on your amendment. However you are whistling in the dark when you try to do these things alone. Look to the Blue Dogs for support and be willing to do a little compromising.
On the matter of "Shining Light on President’s Czars", congratulations on introducing H.R. 3613. It's nice to tell the people about it, but we need more information on how effective it is. For example, how many other representatives do you have to support it? What are you doing to gain additional support?
I would like to also suggest that you spend less time on incidental items. For example, you have devoted as much space in your newsletter to "October Crime Prevention Month" as you have to the other two items, which are at least 10 times more important.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Blue Dog Coalition
Open letter to the Blue Dog Coalition:
I am 88 years old and have excellent long-term and short-term memory.
In my early adult years, I recognized the platform of the Republican Party as conservative, to the extent of minimizing government change, using a hands-off policy on private companies and corporations, while simultaneously embracing a few regulations, such as anti-monopoly. The platform of the Democratic Party appeared to be very similar, with less accent relating to private business, and the willingness to engage in at least minor legislative changes. For both parties, financial responsibility was the watchword.
Through the years, the party platforms have changed. The Republican platform is more like the old-time Democrats. It has become more willing to change. However, it has also sacrificed some of its original responsibility to protect private and corporate interests. It has given up much of its fiscal responsibility, but still claims average fiscal responsibility. The Democratic platform has become more socially involved. The leadership has tended toward unrealistic idealisms, which were not present in the old Democratic platform. The new platform has completely divorced itself from any fiscal responsibility.
I believe that with the present Democratic leadership in power, we are headed toward an oligarchic/dictatorial government, which will later fail through bankruptcy, similar to other world examples.
I also believe that this is not an inevitable development, and your Blue Dog Coalition can be instrumental in developing a new, yet more fiscally responsible federal government. However, your present coalition is too small in its membership to be meaningful in controlling the House agenda. You need a substantial infusion of new members, and many of these may be available from the group which now designate themselves as Republicans. Unfortunately, labels may have a significant influence on your attempting to gain new coalition members. I suggest that at an appropriate time, which would maintain continued support from your local constituencies, you might want to establish a new party known as the Blue Dog Party. When such as solidly available to you, it will go a long way to have many Republicans jump ship. This would be especially true if the newly registered party becomes a party of choice at the local level. Fiscal responsibility and debt reduction will be the most cohesive aspect of the various members.
Consider also that while the Blue Dog Party will have its initial roots in the Democratic House, it will be expanded through the Senate. I and many like me would continue to maintain allegiance to the present personalities even with party label change. For example, my Representative Neugebauer and my Senators Cornyn and Hutchison will more easily retain my vote as Blue Dogs, rather than as Republicans.
I am 88 years old and have excellent long-term and short-term memory.
In my early adult years, I recognized the platform of the Republican Party as conservative, to the extent of minimizing government change, using a hands-off policy on private companies and corporations, while simultaneously embracing a few regulations, such as anti-monopoly. The platform of the Democratic Party appeared to be very similar, with less accent relating to private business, and the willingness to engage in at least minor legislative changes. For both parties, financial responsibility was the watchword.
Through the years, the party platforms have changed. The Republican platform is more like the old-time Democrats. It has become more willing to change. However, it has also sacrificed some of its original responsibility to protect private and corporate interests. It has given up much of its fiscal responsibility, but still claims average fiscal responsibility. The Democratic platform has become more socially involved. The leadership has tended toward unrealistic idealisms, which were not present in the old Democratic platform. The new platform has completely divorced itself from any fiscal responsibility.
I believe that with the present Democratic leadership in power, we are headed toward an oligarchic/dictatorial government, which will later fail through bankruptcy, similar to other world examples.
I also believe that this is not an inevitable development, and your Blue Dog Coalition can be instrumental in developing a new, yet more fiscally responsible federal government. However, your present coalition is too small in its membership to be meaningful in controlling the House agenda. You need a substantial infusion of new members, and many of these may be available from the group which now designate themselves as Republicans. Unfortunately, labels may have a significant influence on your attempting to gain new coalition members. I suggest that at an appropriate time, which would maintain continued support from your local constituencies, you might want to establish a new party known as the Blue Dog Party. When such as solidly available to you, it will go a long way to have many Republicans jump ship. This would be especially true if the newly registered party becomes a party of choice at the local level. Fiscal responsibility and debt reduction will be the most cohesive aspect of the various members.
Consider also that while the Blue Dog Party will have its initial roots in the Democratic House, it will be expanded through the Senate. I and many like me would continue to maintain allegiance to the present personalities even with party label change. For example, my Representative Neugebauer and my Senators Cornyn and Hutchison will more easily retain my vote as Blue Dogs, rather than as Republicans.
Job Importance
E-mail to Congress:
South Carolina Candidate to Launch Campaign With Assault Rifle Giveaway
A Greenville, South Carolina man plans to launch his political campaign for adjutant general Saturday by giving away an AK-47 assault rifle. Dean Allen, 58, said he will give away the rifle in a free sweepstakes open to all. He said it's his way of celebrating the Second Amendment and showing solidarity against gun-rights opponents. (greenvilleonline.com)
If you ever wonder whether your job is important, consider this. The initial part of the French Revolution was a vocal antagonism to the French government. The initial part of the Russian Revolution was a vocal antagonism to the Russian government. In both those cases (and there are others), the next stage was violence. The French were more innovative with the development and use of the guillotine.
Americans are no more a less likely to progress to violence than other peoples. We are now in the vocal antagonism stage. Will we progress to violence? That depends on your actions in Congress. The French and Russian governments could have forestalled their violent overthrow by taking appropriate political action. You have the same opportunity.
Do you want to be remembered as a leader who "fiddled while Rome burned"?
South Carolina Candidate to Launch Campaign With Assault Rifle Giveaway
A Greenville, South Carolina man plans to launch his political campaign for adjutant general Saturday by giving away an AK-47 assault rifle. Dean Allen, 58, said he will give away the rifle in a free sweepstakes open to all. He said it's his way of celebrating the Second Amendment and showing solidarity against gun-rights opponents. (greenvilleonline.com)
If you ever wonder whether your job is important, consider this. The initial part of the French Revolution was a vocal antagonism to the French government. The initial part of the Russian Revolution was a vocal antagonism to the Russian government. In both those cases (and there are others), the next stage was violence. The French were more innovative with the development and use of the guillotine.
Americans are no more a less likely to progress to violence than other peoples. We are now in the vocal antagonism stage. Will we progress to violence? That depends on your actions in Congress. The French and Russian governments could have forestalled their violent overthrow by taking appropriate political action. You have the same opportunity.
Do you want to be remembered as a leader who "fiddled while Rome burned"?
Excessive Automotive Production
E-Mail to Congress
EIN News says, "Russian Car Giant Avtovaz to Cut Up to 27,600 Jobs. Russian car giant Avtovaz said Thursday it would slash up to 27,600 jobs as it struggles with sliding sales due to the impact of the global economic slump. "Today, 102,000 people work at Avtovaz. Such a number cannot guarantee effective and profitable production, therefore we have agreed to reduce the personnel by 27,600 people," the carmaker said in a statement. The intended cuts represent nearly one third of the workforce at the company, which is 25 percent owned by France's Renault. (google.com)".
Smart Russians! Notice that Avtovaz is pursuing a normal capitalistic philosophy. Their objective is to remain in business. There is a declining market, which they attribute to a global economic slump. My personal opinion is that the economic slump has something to do with it, but there is over-competition in the automobile industry and this has led to excessive production of automotive vehicles.
More significantly, notice that while 27,600 people (one third of the workforce) will be laid off, the Russian government has been silent up to now. I predict that they will maintain silence, because they have been through the socialist/communist experience and know its faults. In fact, with that experience, it appears Russia may now be more capitalistically inclined than is the United States.
Will it be necessary that the US fall into complete socialism, become financially bankrupt, and eventually arise from the ashes in a more capitalistic form? I believe you have the power to control what development, if you have the will to do so.
EIN News says, "Russian Car Giant Avtovaz to Cut Up to 27,600 Jobs. Russian car giant Avtovaz said Thursday it would slash up to 27,600 jobs as it struggles with sliding sales due to the impact of the global economic slump. "Today, 102,000 people work at Avtovaz. Such a number cannot guarantee effective and profitable production, therefore we have agreed to reduce the personnel by 27,600 people," the carmaker said in a statement. The intended cuts represent nearly one third of the workforce at the company, which is 25 percent owned by France's Renault. (google.com)".
Smart Russians! Notice that Avtovaz is pursuing a normal capitalistic philosophy. Their objective is to remain in business. There is a declining market, which they attribute to a global economic slump. My personal opinion is that the economic slump has something to do with it, but there is over-competition in the automobile industry and this has led to excessive production of automotive vehicles.
More significantly, notice that while 27,600 people (one third of the workforce) will be laid off, the Russian government has been silent up to now. I predict that they will maintain silence, because they have been through the socialist/communist experience and know its faults. In fact, with that experience, it appears Russia may now be more capitalistically inclined than is the United States.
Will it be necessary that the US fall into complete socialism, become financially bankrupt, and eventually arise from the ashes in a more capitalistic form? I believe you have the power to control what development, if you have the will to do so.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Pres. Obama and Pharoh
from Rudy Wood
A pastor of a predominantly black church in Virginia recently gave this sermon. Hopefully this will help each of us to decide who our real leader is. It is amazing to see that very little has changed in 4,000 years.
RECENT VIRGINIA CHURCH SERVICE -STIMULUS SERMON Genesis 47:13-27
Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will, to the 47th chapter of Genesis, we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27. Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us? ....(reading)...
Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray... So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt, and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built.
So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again. So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock -their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year..
But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.
What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters? That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master? Yes.
But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions!
But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth "once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.
What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"? Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.
Bow with me in prayer, if you will. Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters. Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.
In God We Trust...
A pastor of a predominantly black church in Virginia recently gave this sermon. Hopefully this will help each of us to decide who our real leader is. It is amazing to see that very little has changed in 4,000 years.
RECENT VIRGINIA CHURCH SERVICE -STIMULUS SERMON Genesis 47:13-27
Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will, to the 47th chapter of Genesis, we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27. Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us? ....(reading)...
Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray... So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt, and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built.
So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again. So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock -their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year..
But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.
What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters? That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master? Yes.
But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions!
But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth "once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.
What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"? Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.
Bow with me in prayer, if you will. Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters. Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.
In God We Trust...
Monday, September 21, 2009
Government Nationalization
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Venezuela Prepares to Nationalize Coffee Companies. President Hugo Chavez's government is preparing to nationalize the nation's largest coffee producers, claiming the companies have refused to comply with federal price controls. Commerce Minister Eduardo Saman said he is recommending the nationalization of coffee plants belonging to Caracas-based companies Fama de America and Cafe Madrid. He did not say when the nationalizations could take place (forbes.com)".
This is what I expect dictatorial President Obama will do to your country, unless you stop him now.
EIN News says, "Venezuela Prepares to Nationalize Coffee Companies. President Hugo Chavez's government is preparing to nationalize the nation's largest coffee producers, claiming the companies have refused to comply with federal price controls. Commerce Minister Eduardo Saman said he is recommending the nationalization of coffee plants belonging to Caracas-based companies Fama de America and Cafe Madrid. He did not say when the nationalizations could take place (forbes.com)".
This is what I expect dictatorial President Obama will do to your country, unless you stop him now.
Atomic Defense
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "President Obama Ready to Slash U.S. Nuclear Arsenal. Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal. Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials. (einnews.com)".
There is no possibility of abolishing nuclear weapons. It is in the same category as abolishing hunger, prostitution, general sin, corruption, etc. These and nuclear weapons can only be controlled, never eliminated.
The danger with the philosophy that it will be a safer world without nuclear weapons, is that it is impractical idealism based upon hope and desire, rather than an understanding of motivations and subsequent actions of individual human beings and groups. The likelihood is that Pres. Obama would like to take control of the world by peaceful means. However, there are others that recognize the weakness in such a position and would use conventional and atomic weapons wherever possible to achieve the same objective. Guess who will win.
Congress' responsibility is to establish and maintain defense of the United States and to do so in such manner as to use the best available technology and reasonable finances. Arbitrarily giving up leadership in atomic weaponry would be an act of complete folly. Only a Marxist leaning person such as Obama would consider such a ridiculous notion.
I have high confidence in the common sense of Congress to see the inappropriateness of such action. My only concern is that Congress may continue to be subservient to dictatorial programs of the Administration.
EIN News says, "President Obama Ready to Slash U.S. Nuclear Arsenal. Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal. Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials. (einnews.com)".
There is no possibility of abolishing nuclear weapons. It is in the same category as abolishing hunger, prostitution, general sin, corruption, etc. These and nuclear weapons can only be controlled, never eliminated.
The danger with the philosophy that it will be a safer world without nuclear weapons, is that it is impractical idealism based upon hope and desire, rather than an understanding of motivations and subsequent actions of individual human beings and groups. The likelihood is that Pres. Obama would like to take control of the world by peaceful means. However, there are others that recognize the weakness in such a position and would use conventional and atomic weapons wherever possible to achieve the same objective. Guess who will win.
Congress' responsibility is to establish and maintain defense of the United States and to do so in such manner as to use the best available technology and reasonable finances. Arbitrarily giving up leadership in atomic weaponry would be an act of complete folly. Only a Marxist leaning person such as Obama would consider such a ridiculous notion.
I have high confidence in the common sense of Congress to see the inappropriateness of such action. My only concern is that Congress may continue to be subservient to dictatorial programs of the Administration.
Marxist Leanings
This is another episode in the ongoing e-mail conversations with Carol. My comments are in italics. Carol starts by saying,
Arthur! You are not reading my comments carefully. How in the world did you conclude that I am a Marxist? I told you that his theory has never worked in reality, so why would I support it?
I agree that such labels are a danger, in that they tend to overstate something. I suppose Karl Marx was the only true Marxist. Others, such as you and Pres. Obama have Marxist leanings. I know you say you don't support Marxism. I suspect it is because you intellectually recognize that it is a theory which has never worked. However,emotionally you adhere to many of the principles, because of your previous life experiences, as I have touched on in a previous writing. Marxism, Communism, Socialism are all minor variations of the same philosophy, which is that there should be a sharing of all assets. However, it starts to get a little uncomfortable for the group, when we bring in such matters as free love. As long as we confine our discussions to the underprivileged having the right to take over the assets of the overprivileged, the group is on safe ground intellectually and emotionally.
I told you that I have always been in management. See, this is one of the things that makes dealing with propaganda so difficult; because I am a liberal, I carry all the stereotypes you wish to place on me. It doesn't matter what I say or do, I am simply thrown into a group to which I do not and have never belonged (Marxists). If you read your first paragraph again, you will see it contains sarcasm and stereotyping.
You are technically correct about management. But from what I understand you have always been in a specific branch of management which involves government and its various manifestations. While there are similarities to management of private enterprises, which supply goods and services, there are also many significant differences. A private enterprise must make a profit in order to continue its existence. A government operation can continue its existence as long as it can maintain voter support, without any consideration for economics. At some point government management can also ignore voters indefinitely by even changing the rules of voting (see Banana Republics). Private enterprise cannot ignore its customers for very long.
I'm sorry if I showed sarcasm. I try to avoid that. However, I do engage in stereotyping primarily as an administrative technique to be able to separate right from wrong. I also recognize that there are many shades of gray.
As to the examples of persons deemed to be falsifying applications; if everyone has affordable access to health care, it becomes a moot point.
I am really sorry about your position on this one. You are saying that adherence to truth should only be a matter of convenience or importance as judged by (you?). It is difficult to know when absolute truths apply, but one should always try. Even the present state of questionable truth in the US government has allowed the Justice Department to recently hold three potential terrorists for lying to officials.
Let me also repeat that everyone now has affordable access to healthcare. The difference of opinion lies in the detail. Designate the cases where affordable health care was not available for significant health problem (eliminate hangnails). I just heard on television that 45,000 people per year die because of unavailable health care. The TV announcer merely repeated information from some study, apparently without any attempt to determine legitimacy, by looking at how the data was collected. Death is absolute and need not be questioned, except for its numbers. "Unavailable Health Care" is very iffy in its definition. Who says it was unavailable? On what basis was the judgment of unavailability made?
And, finally, I can separate opinion from fact.
I'm glad.
Arthur! You are not reading my comments carefully. How in the world did you conclude that I am a Marxist? I told you that his theory has never worked in reality, so why would I support it?
I agree that such labels are a danger, in that they tend to overstate something. I suppose Karl Marx was the only true Marxist. Others, such as you and Pres. Obama have Marxist leanings. I know you say you don't support Marxism. I suspect it is because you intellectually recognize that it is a theory which has never worked. However,emotionally you adhere to many of the principles, because of your previous life experiences, as I have touched on in a previous writing. Marxism, Communism, Socialism are all minor variations of the same philosophy, which is that there should be a sharing of all assets. However, it starts to get a little uncomfortable for the group, when we bring in such matters as free love. As long as we confine our discussions to the underprivileged having the right to take over the assets of the overprivileged, the group is on safe ground intellectually and emotionally.
I told you that I have always been in management. See, this is one of the things that makes dealing with propaganda so difficult; because I am a liberal, I carry all the stereotypes you wish to place on me. It doesn't matter what I say or do, I am simply thrown into a group to which I do not and have never belonged (Marxists). If you read your first paragraph again, you will see it contains sarcasm and stereotyping.
You are technically correct about management. But from what I understand you have always been in a specific branch of management which involves government and its various manifestations. While there are similarities to management of private enterprises, which supply goods and services, there are also many significant differences. A private enterprise must make a profit in order to continue its existence. A government operation can continue its existence as long as it can maintain voter support, without any consideration for economics. At some point government management can also ignore voters indefinitely by even changing the rules of voting (see Banana Republics). Private enterprise cannot ignore its customers for very long.
I'm sorry if I showed sarcasm. I try to avoid that. However, I do engage in stereotyping primarily as an administrative technique to be able to separate right from wrong. I also recognize that there are many shades of gray.
As to the examples of persons deemed to be falsifying applications; if everyone has affordable access to health care, it becomes a moot point.
I am really sorry about your position on this one. You are saying that adherence to truth should only be a matter of convenience or importance as judged by (you?). It is difficult to know when absolute truths apply, but one should always try. Even the present state of questionable truth in the US government has allowed the Justice Department to recently hold three potential terrorists for lying to officials.
Let me also repeat that everyone now has affordable access to healthcare. The difference of opinion lies in the detail. Designate the cases where affordable health care was not available for significant health problem (eliminate hangnails). I just heard on television that 45,000 people per year die because of unavailable health care. The TV announcer merely repeated information from some study, apparently without any attempt to determine legitimacy, by looking at how the data was collected. Death is absolute and need not be questioned, except for its numbers. "Unavailable Health Care" is very iffy in its definition. Who says it was unavailable? On what basis was the judgment of unavailability made?
And, finally, I can separate opinion from fact.
I'm glad.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Congressional Power
E-mail to Congress:
We need you, your associates, your friends, and your enemies in Congress to all vote "No" on every aspect of healthcare.
The issue is no longer whether we need healthcare reform or healthcare insurance.
We now need to show Mr. Obama that he is a President, not a Dictator.
Once we have established that Congress is not a pawn of the Administration, and actually has a power of its own, we can come back to what we need to do about health care.
We need you, your associates, your friends, and your enemies in Congress to all vote "No" on every aspect of healthcare.
The issue is no longer whether we need healthcare reform or healthcare insurance.
We now need to show Mr. Obama that he is a President, not a Dictator.
Once we have established that Congress is not a pawn of the Administration, and actually has a power of its own, we can come back to what we need to do about health care.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Missile Defense of Europe
EIN News, says "Obama Scrapping Missile Shield for Czech Republic, Poland. The Czech prime minister says President Barack Obama has told him that the U.S. is abandoning plans to put a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. Czech Premier Jan Fischer told reporters in Prague on Thursday that Obama phoned him to say that Washington has decided to scrap the plan that had deeply angered Russia. Fischer says Obama confirmed that Washington no longer intends to put 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. (google.com)".
I agree with Pres. Obama on this one. We have for more than 60 years spent tremendous sums of money to rebuild Europe and protect it from itself. It is long past time to get out of this.
Our entering World War II was likely justified, through our fear and anticipation that the Japanese and Germans would collectively control our economic and personal liberties. Our subsequent contributions toward reconstruction of Japan and Germany have set them up as primary economic contributors and competitors in the world market, of which we are part.
The present political attitudes of government leaders in Japan and Germany do not indicate a militaristic approach for world domination in the same manner as had been previously demonstrated prior to World War II, nor do we see that with other major powers, such as Russia or China. The saber rattling of North Korea and Iran are annoying, but not significantly worrisome, except as I will explain below.
Since the Western Europeans have demonstrated their ability to establish international cooperation on their continent, through the European Union (EU), it is reasonably apparent that no US military bases are necessary to keep them from each others throats. We don't need missiles and radar in any part of Europe. If the members of the EU feel that they need such devices to protect the membership from from any unilateral actions, they have the ability to set up their own systems.
If we need medical service bases in Europe for logistical reasons to treat our wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan, that is another matter. We should soon be getting out of those wars and can then eliminate the medical service bases in Europe.
For our own protection we need a US-based missile shield, which we already have. The fundamental for this is retaliation in case of an atomic attack after which millions of our citizens would be destined to die. To thwart that possibility, we need both a warning and an interceptor system to pre-explode any foreign missiles for which we are the target. Simply, this is Star Wars defense. It has been proposed many times before, and we still need it. It has been said that it is also very difficult to accomplish. I don't believe it.
I suspect that there are those in our government who still consider that Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is an appropriate government philosophy for atomic weaponry. The simple aspect of the philosophy is that there should be an international balance of atomic capability, such that no country will fire off an atomic missile knowing that in doing so retaliation from the target country will be such as to basically eliminate mankind in the perpetrator country. It was this philosophy and subsequent transmission of technical information that guided the Russians into rapid atomic capability right after World War II.
The MAD philosophy has been effective for more than 60 years, in spite of some obvious flaws. Those flaws remain and could be potentially destructive to mankind on a worldwide basis. One of the key flaws is a thought that there are already too many people in the world, and a foreign leader will be able to physically protect himself from a retaliatory atomic attack, and will be willing to sacrifice his own country's population. A second flaw is that a foreign country may well establish a Star Wars interceptor system, such that retaliatory atomic missiles will be neutralized.
If the MAD philosophy continues to exist here in the US, portions of the government will continue to resist Star Wars missile neutralization, on the basis that it does not trust its own leadership, which may decide to be an international aggressor. I will grant that possibility, but if I must trust between our own US leadership and potential foreign aggressors, I trust ourselves more.
Let's get on with the Star Wars program of intercepting foreign incoming missiles.
I agree with Pres. Obama on this one. We have for more than 60 years spent tremendous sums of money to rebuild Europe and protect it from itself. It is long past time to get out of this.
Our entering World War II was likely justified, through our fear and anticipation that the Japanese and Germans would collectively control our economic and personal liberties. Our subsequent contributions toward reconstruction of Japan and Germany have set them up as primary economic contributors and competitors in the world market, of which we are part.
The present political attitudes of government leaders in Japan and Germany do not indicate a militaristic approach for world domination in the same manner as had been previously demonstrated prior to World War II, nor do we see that with other major powers, such as Russia or China. The saber rattling of North Korea and Iran are annoying, but not significantly worrisome, except as I will explain below.
Since the Western Europeans have demonstrated their ability to establish international cooperation on their continent, through the European Union (EU), it is reasonably apparent that no US military bases are necessary to keep them from each others throats. We don't need missiles and radar in any part of Europe. If the members of the EU feel that they need such devices to protect the membership from from any unilateral actions, they have the ability to set up their own systems.
If we need medical service bases in Europe for logistical reasons to treat our wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan, that is another matter. We should soon be getting out of those wars and can then eliminate the medical service bases in Europe.
For our own protection we need a US-based missile shield, which we already have. The fundamental for this is retaliation in case of an atomic attack after which millions of our citizens would be destined to die. To thwart that possibility, we need both a warning and an interceptor system to pre-explode any foreign missiles for which we are the target. Simply, this is Star Wars defense. It has been proposed many times before, and we still need it. It has been said that it is also very difficult to accomplish. I don't believe it.
I suspect that there are those in our government who still consider that Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is an appropriate government philosophy for atomic weaponry. The simple aspect of the philosophy is that there should be an international balance of atomic capability, such that no country will fire off an atomic missile knowing that in doing so retaliation from the target country will be such as to basically eliminate mankind in the perpetrator country. It was this philosophy and subsequent transmission of technical information that guided the Russians into rapid atomic capability right after World War II.
The MAD philosophy has been effective for more than 60 years, in spite of some obvious flaws. Those flaws remain and could be potentially destructive to mankind on a worldwide basis. One of the key flaws is a thought that there are already too many people in the world, and a foreign leader will be able to physically protect himself from a retaliatory atomic attack, and will be willing to sacrifice his own country's population. A second flaw is that a foreign country may well establish a Star Wars interceptor system, such that retaliatory atomic missiles will be neutralized.
If the MAD philosophy continues to exist here in the US, portions of the government will continue to resist Star Wars missile neutralization, on the basis that it does not trust its own leadership, which may decide to be an international aggressor. I will grant that possibility, but if I must trust between our own US leadership and potential foreign aggressors, I trust ourselves more.
Let's get on with the Star Wars program of intercepting foreign incoming missiles.
Government Grants for Battery Research
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. House Clears $3 Billion for Auto Technology Research. The House of Representatives approved a $3 billion proposal on Wednesday to further spur research into advanced batteries and other technologies to power electric cars and other vehicles. The bill, proposed by Michigan Representative Gary Peters, would also establish a technology program for commercial trucks, transit vehicles and heavy duty machinery. (reuters.com)".
As I have said repeatedly, I am normally opposed to government grants. However, there can be exceptions. I am somewhat ambivalent on this one.
OPEC has for many years had a world monopoly on petroleum production to control price and availability. More recently other major petroleum producers have appeared and do not operate within the OPEC framework. However, collectively they arbitrarily control petroleum price and availability. Therefore, they are part of the world wide petroleum monopoly. This monopoly has a stranglehold on all of our US consumed automotive fuel.
We have allowed that monopoly to control our automotive fuel supply, even though we have had an opportunity to minimize its importance through our own accelerated petroleum production. We have arbitrarily decided not to pursue that route, through unreasonable pressure by extreme environmentalists. One could say these extreme environmentalists have been working for OPEC and its associates.
Conversion of automotive energy requirements from petroleum to electricity, would be another way to minimize the effect of the worldwide petroleum monopoly, and would also improve our balance of payments. An effective means to do this may be conversion to electric vehicles. It appears that the technology is not yet competitive to petroleum usage in an internal combustion engine, but there is reasonable anticipation that could be made so.
Although we still have an opportunity to improve our internal petroleum production, I give lukewarm support to government grants to industry for improved battery research. It really should take a combination of both these actions, to break the back of the worldwide petroleum monopoly.
We need to also anticipate subsequent requirements, if electric cars can become reasonably competitive with petroleum using automotive vehicles. In effect, we would be shifting energy requirements from petroleum to electricity. That would require expansion of current electricity capacity. Most electricity is produced now from coal-fired power plants. Atomic energy power plants now contribute a small portion, but new designs and applications have been applied for and government has seen fit to expedite approval. Wind and solar production of electricity will still remain a relatively small portion of the total requirement, in spite of major construction in these areas.
However, expansion of existing coal-fired power plants will likely be necessary. This creates a problem with the present governmental attitude on carbon dioxide, which is always an emission of a coal-fired power plant. I have said repeatedly that there is no significant evidence that carbon dioxide has any effect on global warming and any attempts to control its concentration in the atmosphere are unnecessary. Capturing carbon dioxide from power plants costs significant money both in capital equipment and operating costs. Continued consideration of capturing carbon dioxide increases costs of electricity production, such as to minimize the possibility of effectively combating the worldwide petroleum monopoly.
I ask Congress to continually resist Administration attempts to control climate through control of carbon dioxide emissions, such as Cap and Trade.
EIN News says, "U.S. House Clears $3 Billion for Auto Technology Research. The House of Representatives approved a $3 billion proposal on Wednesday to further spur research into advanced batteries and other technologies to power electric cars and other vehicles. The bill, proposed by Michigan Representative Gary Peters, would also establish a technology program for commercial trucks, transit vehicles and heavy duty machinery. (reuters.com)".
As I have said repeatedly, I am normally opposed to government grants. However, there can be exceptions. I am somewhat ambivalent on this one.
OPEC has for many years had a world monopoly on petroleum production to control price and availability. More recently other major petroleum producers have appeared and do not operate within the OPEC framework. However, collectively they arbitrarily control petroleum price and availability. Therefore, they are part of the world wide petroleum monopoly. This monopoly has a stranglehold on all of our US consumed automotive fuel.
We have allowed that monopoly to control our automotive fuel supply, even though we have had an opportunity to minimize its importance through our own accelerated petroleum production. We have arbitrarily decided not to pursue that route, through unreasonable pressure by extreme environmentalists. One could say these extreme environmentalists have been working for OPEC and its associates.
Conversion of automotive energy requirements from petroleum to electricity, would be another way to minimize the effect of the worldwide petroleum monopoly, and would also improve our balance of payments. An effective means to do this may be conversion to electric vehicles. It appears that the technology is not yet competitive to petroleum usage in an internal combustion engine, but there is reasonable anticipation that could be made so.
Although we still have an opportunity to improve our internal petroleum production, I give lukewarm support to government grants to industry for improved battery research. It really should take a combination of both these actions, to break the back of the worldwide petroleum monopoly.
We need to also anticipate subsequent requirements, if electric cars can become reasonably competitive with petroleum using automotive vehicles. In effect, we would be shifting energy requirements from petroleum to electricity. That would require expansion of current electricity capacity. Most electricity is produced now from coal-fired power plants. Atomic energy power plants now contribute a small portion, but new designs and applications have been applied for and government has seen fit to expedite approval. Wind and solar production of electricity will still remain a relatively small portion of the total requirement, in spite of major construction in these areas.
However, expansion of existing coal-fired power plants will likely be necessary. This creates a problem with the present governmental attitude on carbon dioxide, which is always an emission of a coal-fired power plant. I have said repeatedly that there is no significant evidence that carbon dioxide has any effect on global warming and any attempts to control its concentration in the atmosphere are unnecessary. Capturing carbon dioxide from power plants costs significant money both in capital equipment and operating costs. Continued consideration of capturing carbon dioxide increases costs of electricity production, such as to minimize the possibility of effectively combating the worldwide petroleum monopoly.
I ask Congress to continually resist Administration attempts to control climate through control of carbon dioxide emissions, such as Cap and Trade.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Carol Says But
This is the ongoing conversation with [liberal] Carol. My comments are in italics. Carol says,
Emergency room treatment doesn't restore people to health. It is the
inaccessibility of health care that causes many of the problems the
uninsured face. I doubt if you worked in a children's cancer center, you
would not get somewhat emotional about those unable to get
treatment...unless you are very cold, which I doubt. Personally, I am
passionate towards helping people survive.
Emergency treatment does restore health. Health is the absence of death. When we avoid death, we create health. Perhaps you think health is an absolute state. It is not. All people walk around or exist with a degree of health. Many have a lower degree of health because they abuse their bodies by excessive eating, drinking, insufficient sleep, not paying attention to symptomatic changes, wherein they could take corrective action, etc.. Am I supposed to feel sorry for those people, because they make no effort towards self-control and attention to their own responsibilities? I already support their health in that they can go to the emergency room to maintain their life at my expense. Contrary to what you say, health care is available to all either through personal treatments or professional attention at hospitals and clinics. Those needing healthcare need only to treat themselves or when that is not possible, ask for help.
I have not worked in a children's cancer center nor do I intend to. I do not like to be around the poor and unfortunate, although I see a need for others to do so, and I respect their compassion and ability to work in that area. I spend my time with growth possibilities in education and to a degree with persons like you in an effort to preserve a workable system within the country. I help people survive on a larger scale, but I do also work with individuals.
No, personal liberties don't have anything to do with emergency health care. We all know what people
can to their health all by themselves. You can only help those that
seek help. However, in life-threatening situations, personal liberties
don't enter the picture. Anyone available must do what he/she
can...rights don't enter into it. Have you ever worked in an emergency room? The context I am using the words public opinion in means that the people expressing unsubstantiated opinions often haven't done their homework.
This is our responsibility in a government, which requires its citizens
to be informed in order to make judgments on what is best for the
country. For example, to elect judges, whom most of the voters have
never heard of, one must spend hours studying their backgrounds, et al.
If we don't take responsibility for our actions, like voting, our form
of government fails.
Too much emotion in this paragraph. Personal liberties do have everything to do with healthcare. The recipient has the liberty to decide to accept it. The basic giver should have the decision to decide to grant it, but he does not in a socialistic society. One can help those who want help as those persons usually do in a life-threatening situation. This is the reason why we have medical emergency units, who don't ask political or financial questions in life-threatening situations. They merely apply technology to sustain life. I've never worked in an emergency room but I have been there. My first visit was when I had a leg wound which was bleeding profusely. There was a waiting line. One person had a headache. Another person needed a second opinion on a medical procedure. There are plenty of hypochondriacs in the United States. Any more convenient medical care will increase that number, at substantial unnecessary cost to the economy. Most people have a basis on which they have an opinion, as I am sure you do. It is usually a function of basic personality characteristics concerning compassion etc,.previous training and subsequent influences, such as desire for personal profit, jealousy with respect to others who appear to have more financial assets, and a number of other things. You are a product of this background, just as I am with mine.
I agree that voters should be informed on the ideologies and previous records of candidates for public office.
The insurance system as it exists leaves out 45,000,000 or so of our
citizens, has ever-increasing rates, drops people seriously ill or
denies coverage due to pre-existing conditions, doesn't always pay for
services covered by contract...it needs fixing.
I'm rather tired of seeing this 45 million number batted about, in spite of the fact that on analysis it is a significant misrepresentation of the facts. Even if we agree on 45 million, and even if those 45 million people are denied health insurance, they are not denied health care, as I have explained several times previously. Insurance companies are also not allowed to drop seriously ill people from an accepted insurance program, PROVIDING the applicants have been truthful in their initial applications. Even those who may be subsequently dropped from insurance because of initial untruthfulness in their applications can always receive emergency room treatment to sustain their lives. How many of the 45 million do not want health insurance, because they feel it is an unnecessary expense? How many also feel they do not want it because of ideological opposition? The rights of all these people should be respected, even though you may disagree. You should not have the power to force them into accepting a program which they feel they have the personal right to reject.
I don't see anything in health care reform that will destroy the private insurance companies.
There is plenty of speculation that it will because of a deep-seated
distrust of our government to get things right. President Obama is too
new on the scene to predict that his plan will destroy the private
insurance industry.
Let me explain it to you again. If you establish a government insurance company and offer me exceptionally good benefits at extremely low costs, I will accept a government insurance program for my personal needs. Millions of other people will the same. Those millions who have jumped to government insurance are no longer customers or private insurance companies. Without customers, private insurance companies can no longer exist.
There is a deep-seated distrust of government or any institution that has unmodulated power. If you may claim that the government insurance company will not offer better benefits and lower premiums, you may be initially correct. However, history shows that government does not operate in this stable, consistent manner. They change things based upon an initial program which will institute modifications in easy stages, or government regulators may change their minds in operation of a particular program.
Please elucidate on monopolistic control of the banking and automotive
industries. Several banks have paid back their bail-outs. The automotive
industry is operating in the private sector. The king-pin of the banking
industry, the Federal Reserve, is a private corporation.
Government does not now have monopolistic control of the banking and automotive industries. However, government has now an increasing stake in both these industries. One obtains control of a corporation through seats on the board of directors, which direct from the the operations of the company, including the appointment of Administrative Officers. While government does not now have monopolistic control, it does have substantially more control now and than it did before Mr. Obama became President.
It is a laugh to even think that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. With that line of thought, you could also add Freddie Mac and Ginny Mae as private corporations. Why not add the Department of Energy?
Carol
Emergency room treatment doesn't restore people to health. It is the
inaccessibility of health care that causes many of the problems the
uninsured face. I doubt if you worked in a children's cancer center, you
would not get somewhat emotional about those unable to get
treatment...unless you are very cold, which I doubt. Personally, I am
passionate towards helping people survive.
Emergency treatment does restore health. Health is the absence of death. When we avoid death, we create health. Perhaps you think health is an absolute state. It is not. All people walk around or exist with a degree of health. Many have a lower degree of health because they abuse their bodies by excessive eating, drinking, insufficient sleep, not paying attention to symptomatic changes, wherein they could take corrective action, etc.. Am I supposed to feel sorry for those people, because they make no effort towards self-control and attention to their own responsibilities? I already support their health in that they can go to the emergency room to maintain their life at my expense. Contrary to what you say, health care is available to all either through personal treatments or professional attention at hospitals and clinics. Those needing healthcare need only to treat themselves or when that is not possible, ask for help.
I have not worked in a children's cancer center nor do I intend to. I do not like to be around the poor and unfortunate, although I see a need for others to do so, and I respect their compassion and ability to work in that area. I spend my time with growth possibilities in education and to a degree with persons like you in an effort to preserve a workable system within the country. I help people survive on a larger scale, but I do also work with individuals.
No, personal liberties don't have anything to do with emergency health care. We all know what people
can to their health all by themselves. You can only help those that
seek help. However, in life-threatening situations, personal liberties
don't enter the picture. Anyone available must do what he/she
can...rights don't enter into it. Have you ever worked in an emergency room? The context I am using the words public opinion in means that the people expressing unsubstantiated opinions often haven't done their homework.
This is our responsibility in a government, which requires its citizens
to be informed in order to make judgments on what is best for the
country. For example, to elect judges, whom most of the voters have
never heard of, one must spend hours studying their backgrounds, et al.
If we don't take responsibility for our actions, like voting, our form
of government fails.
Too much emotion in this paragraph. Personal liberties do have everything to do with healthcare. The recipient has the liberty to decide to accept it. The basic giver should have the decision to decide to grant it, but he does not in a socialistic society. One can help those who want help as those persons usually do in a life-threatening situation. This is the reason why we have medical emergency units, who don't ask political or financial questions in life-threatening situations. They merely apply technology to sustain life. I've never worked in an emergency room but I have been there. My first visit was when I had a leg wound which was bleeding profusely. There was a waiting line. One person had a headache. Another person needed a second opinion on a medical procedure. There are plenty of hypochondriacs in the United States. Any more convenient medical care will increase that number, at substantial unnecessary cost to the economy. Most people have a basis on which they have an opinion, as I am sure you do. It is usually a function of basic personality characteristics concerning compassion etc,.previous training and subsequent influences, such as desire for personal profit, jealousy with respect to others who appear to have more financial assets, and a number of other things. You are a product of this background, just as I am with mine.
I agree that voters should be informed on the ideologies and previous records of candidates for public office.
The insurance system as it exists leaves out 45,000,000 or so of our
citizens, has ever-increasing rates, drops people seriously ill or
denies coverage due to pre-existing conditions, doesn't always pay for
services covered by contract...it needs fixing.
I'm rather tired of seeing this 45 million number batted about, in spite of the fact that on analysis it is a significant misrepresentation of the facts. Even if we agree on 45 million, and even if those 45 million people are denied health insurance, they are not denied health care, as I have explained several times previously. Insurance companies are also not allowed to drop seriously ill people from an accepted insurance program, PROVIDING the applicants have been truthful in their initial applications. Even those who may be subsequently dropped from insurance because of initial untruthfulness in their applications can always receive emergency room treatment to sustain their lives. How many of the 45 million do not want health insurance, because they feel it is an unnecessary expense? How many also feel they do not want it because of ideological opposition? The rights of all these people should be respected, even though you may disagree. You should not have the power to force them into accepting a program which they feel they have the personal right to reject.
I don't see anything in health care reform that will destroy the private insurance companies.
There is plenty of speculation that it will because of a deep-seated
distrust of our government to get things right. President Obama is too
new on the scene to predict that his plan will destroy the private
insurance industry.
Let me explain it to you again. If you establish a government insurance company and offer me exceptionally good benefits at extremely low costs, I will accept a government insurance program for my personal needs. Millions of other people will the same. Those millions who have jumped to government insurance are no longer customers or private insurance companies. Without customers, private insurance companies can no longer exist.
There is a deep-seated distrust of government or any institution that has unmodulated power. If you may claim that the government insurance company will not offer better benefits and lower premiums, you may be initially correct. However, history shows that government does not operate in this stable, consistent manner. They change things based upon an initial program which will institute modifications in easy stages, or government regulators may change their minds in operation of a particular program.
Please elucidate on monopolistic control of the banking and automotive
industries. Several banks have paid back their bail-outs. The automotive
industry is operating in the private sector. The king-pin of the banking
industry, the Federal Reserve, is a private corporation.
Government does not now have monopolistic control of the banking and automotive industries. However, government has now an increasing stake in both these industries. One obtains control of a corporation through seats on the board of directors, which direct from the the operations of the company, including the appointment of Administrative Officers. While government does not now have monopolistic control, it does have substantially more control now and than it did before Mr. Obama became President.
It is a laugh to even think that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. With that line of thought, you could also add Freddie Mac and Ginny Mae as private corporations. Why not add the Department of Energy?
Carol
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
