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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.