EIN News says, "Iran Executes Man Convicted of Spying for Israel. Iran on Tuesday executed two men, one of them said to be a member of an exiled opposition group and the other convicted of spying for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, according to official reports. (nytimes.com)".
I have mixed feelings on this primarily because it is so nonspecific. Spying is too general a term. Before we start to consider a penalty for spying, we really should understand the specific nature of the action. For example, if a person or group is able to obtain through subterfuge military plans or a design of a military weapon, which is later placed in the hands of a foreign government, a significant number of lives could be jeopardized. This is the traditional concept of spying, as demonstrated in novels, movies and TV programs. The spy, when caught, prosecuted, and convicted, deserves the death penalty in this case, because he has contributed to potential mass murder.
On the other hand, spying may be much less dangerous to human life. An example is industrial spying, where the spy is stealing commercial secrets, which he can then sell to competitive companies. Another example is a person peeking under a window shade at another person undressing, which is an invasion of personal privacy. While these two examples are morally and legally prosecutable, they obviously do not deserve the death penalty.
Before we can agree or disagree with Iran's execution of an Israeli spy, we should know more about the specifics of the charges. Since he was convicted of spying for the Israeli intelligence service, there is an implication that his action placed in jeopardy the lives of Iranian citizens, in which case a death penalty would be warranted. However, we know from experience that the Iranian government is somewhat erratic in the perusal of such matters, and we would be completely justified in questioning the action they took in this matter until further detail would be presented.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
International Terrorism
Open letter to President Obama, US State Department, US Military, and News Media:
I have a few questions concerning international terrorism, which I propose to all of the above. Those persons may have personally considered answers to these questions in private, but I have not heard answers in public announcements.
The Department of Homeland Security has recently switched their announced program from an accent on international terrorism, including Al Qaeda, to homegrown terrorism. The matter of homegrown terrorism can be discussed later. For now, I would like to question our policies and activities on international terrorism, even though international seems to have reduced attention.
Yemen and Pakistan are considered to be nesting places for the development of terrorism programs against the US. We have presumably been giving these countries significant amounts of money to reduce and eliminate terrorism development within their borders. This has obviously not been completely successful. We have the military capability to locate training camps and use explosive missiles to wipe them out, without putting a foot on foreign soil. Why don't we advise the administration's of those countries that their programs of control have basically failed, and we are now taking the next step of assuming direct responsibility for this elimination or at least much improved control?
I notice that when the US catches a foreign terrorist, he is usually of Jordanian, or other Middle Eastern or African origin. I also notice that Western Europe seems to be a target as well as the US. How about Russia? I don't see any reports on Middle Eastern or African terrorist activities in Russia. They seem to have some problems with terrorists from areas previously controlled by the Soviet Union, but why no Middle East and or African terrorists? Am I missing something? Do Middle Eastern and African terrorist have no complaints against Russia, and therefore are inactive there? If so, why?
We have many terrorist control procedures in US airports, and the same goes for Western European airports. We hear a little about terrorist control procedures at Israeli airports, but nothing about Russian airports. Why? Russians are very capable people, and their government is usually very efficient in such matters. Is there something we can learn from them, or does the problem not exist there? The same goes for China. No problem there or do they have some good control procedures on international terrorism, which we should be using?
Now switch to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The international terrorism of the Taliban seems to be confined against our military in Afghanistan, rather than terrorism episodes on the US homeland. If our military was not in Afghanistan, there presumably would be no terrorism against it. The Russians fought against somebody in Afghanistan for several years and finally gave up the fight. Were they fighting against the Taliban? Is the Taliban seeking revenge on Russia by terrorist activities on Russian soil? If not, why not? Perhaps there is some sort of armed truce. If there is, can we do that too? Remember, this is an Obama war. We do not need to be in Afghanistan to protect ourselves at this stage, and we are not in the business of nation building, with all of our other problems. If we leave the Afghanis to their own devices, as we should, we solve the immediate problem of terrorism against our military.
What's the bottom line? I suspect that we have not been looking at international terrorism in a practical way. We even tend to foster it by giving away money, which indicates our lack of resolve in reducing the problem. Terrorism is a physical activity. It must be controlled in a physical way by the military. A "do good" attitude only contributes to its continuance, with money needlessly flowing down the drain. Public opinion is strongly to blame in developing this "do good" attitude. A public demand of quickly prosecuting and sentencing captured terrorists will do much in reducing the problem. Strong measures are necessary, including the death penalty for those who have attempted mass murder.
I have a few questions concerning international terrorism, which I propose to all of the above. Those persons may have personally considered answers to these questions in private, but I have not heard answers in public announcements.
The Department of Homeland Security has recently switched their announced program from an accent on international terrorism, including Al Qaeda, to homegrown terrorism. The matter of homegrown terrorism can be discussed later. For now, I would like to question our policies and activities on international terrorism, even though international seems to have reduced attention.
Yemen and Pakistan are considered to be nesting places for the development of terrorism programs against the US. We have presumably been giving these countries significant amounts of money to reduce and eliminate terrorism development within their borders. This has obviously not been completely successful. We have the military capability to locate training camps and use explosive missiles to wipe them out, without putting a foot on foreign soil. Why don't we advise the administration's of those countries that their programs of control have basically failed, and we are now taking the next step of assuming direct responsibility for this elimination or at least much improved control?
I notice that when the US catches a foreign terrorist, he is usually of Jordanian, or other Middle Eastern or African origin. I also notice that Western Europe seems to be a target as well as the US. How about Russia? I don't see any reports on Middle Eastern or African terrorist activities in Russia. They seem to have some problems with terrorists from areas previously controlled by the Soviet Union, but why no Middle East and or African terrorists? Am I missing something? Do Middle Eastern and African terrorist have no complaints against Russia, and therefore are inactive there? If so, why?
We have many terrorist control procedures in US airports, and the same goes for Western European airports. We hear a little about terrorist control procedures at Israeli airports, but nothing about Russian airports. Why? Russians are very capable people, and their government is usually very efficient in such matters. Is there something we can learn from them, or does the problem not exist there? The same goes for China. No problem there or do they have some good control procedures on international terrorism, which we should be using?
Now switch to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The international terrorism of the Taliban seems to be confined against our military in Afghanistan, rather than terrorism episodes on the US homeland. If our military was not in Afghanistan, there presumably would be no terrorism against it. The Russians fought against somebody in Afghanistan for several years and finally gave up the fight. Were they fighting against the Taliban? Is the Taliban seeking revenge on Russia by terrorist activities on Russian soil? If not, why not? Perhaps there is some sort of armed truce. If there is, can we do that too? Remember, this is an Obama war. We do not need to be in Afghanistan to protect ourselves at this stage, and we are not in the business of nation building, with all of our other problems. If we leave the Afghanis to their own devices, as we should, we solve the immediate problem of terrorism against our military.
What's the bottom line? I suspect that we have not been looking at international terrorism in a practical way. We even tend to foster it by giving away money, which indicates our lack of resolve in reducing the problem. Terrorism is a physical activity. It must be controlled in a physical way by the military. A "do good" attitude only contributes to its continuance, with money needlessly flowing down the drain. Public opinion is strongly to blame in developing this "do good" attitude. A public demand of quickly prosecuting and sentencing captured terrorists will do much in reducing the problem. Strong measures are necessary, including the death penalty for those who have attempted mass murder.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Face up to North Korea Now on Use of Atomic Weaponry
Open letter to the Federal Administration, Military, and Congress:
EIN News says, "North Korea Threatens Nuclear 'Holy War'. North Korea's armed forces minister says his country's military is ready for a holy war involving nuclear weapons after the South conducted large-scale military exercises. (net.au)"
This is a typical bullying situation. We have heard much in the news recently about bullying. Most of the rhetoric is confined to children and schools. There is a ridiculous discussion of passing laws to control it. The fact is that bullying is a part of life, just like love and hate. They are uncontrollable emotions. Only the actions therefrom can be controlled. For that, we have laws, such as assault and battery.
There are bullies in the schoolyard and also on the broader international scale. North Korea is a bully. It threatens dire consequences unless it gets his way.
I tell my kids that you cannot pacify a bully by acceding to his requests. You must not allow him to steal your lunch money. He may be bigger than you and threaten physical violence, but you must stand up against him. You will likely get beaten up but you can do considerable damage to him in the encounter. It is attitude that counts and it is almost guaranteed that the bully will no longer continue bullying you after the encounter.
The situation of North Korea bullying is more complicated. Their threat of physical violence is undefined, with respect to the recipient, but the implication is South Korea. The US is involved, because South Korea is our friend. We even fought a war against North Korea to retain the freedom of South Koreans. However, that's history. We must look at things more pragmatically in terms of the present situation. We have no actual moral obligation to defend South Korea, any more than we have a moral obligation to defend any other country in the world. Our primary responsibility is to the citizens of the United States.
North Korea is said to have a nuclear energy bomb, which we know by previous experience in our own production and use is a terrible weapon of destruction. North Korea's threats to use the atomic device is its basis of bullying. We must accept the challenge. They may actually try to use it. We hope not, but it could happen. Consider that sooner or later someone in on the world will detonate another nuclear device just as we did against Japan. We must stand up to the bullying of North Korea now.
No one What if North Korea is crazy enough to take the first step by detonating a nuclear device on the Korean Peninsula? We must retaliate, and we must say so before hand in the hope that it will deter North Korea from taking the initial action. We have shown considerable weakness in the past, which will further weaken our hand in the initial rhetoric. In short, the North Koreans may not believe this but we should do our best to convince them of our resolve. What is our resolve? If they detonate a nuclear device over a populated area, we will use better devices in wiping out the whole population of North Korea, with hopefully as little ancillary destruction as possible.
We certainly don't want a complete international nuclear war, which would essentially destroy all world population, but for that to happen, China and Russia would have to be participants. To avoid that, we must have serious talks with China and Russia beforehand to determine whether they would generally be in agreement with our intention to confront the bully or whether they in turn would contribute to the bullying by threatening use of their own atomic weaponry. That would be a case for reconsideration of the secondary bullying, because the stakes would be too high. It would be mutual destruction. A bullied kid can live with a bloodied nose to counteract a bullying situation, but if the confrontation would lead to the death of both contestants, the stakes are too high.
The world can presently live with an absence of South Korea and North Korea, if that appears necessary. It can't continue if we are all gone.
If we don't take action now, the bullying action of North Korea and acceding to their demands will eventually place them in a position of extreme atomic military power, equivalent to the US, China and Russia. Confronting the bully at that time would be impossible. We confronted the Nazi bully in World War II, but the stakes were low. Not all populations were at risk. Mutual atomic construction is another matter. It is suicide.
Face up to North Korea now or it becomes worse if not impossible.
EIN News says, "North Korea Threatens Nuclear 'Holy War'. North Korea's armed forces minister says his country's military is ready for a holy war involving nuclear weapons after the South conducted large-scale military exercises. (net.au)"
This is a typical bullying situation. We have heard much in the news recently about bullying. Most of the rhetoric is confined to children and schools. There is a ridiculous discussion of passing laws to control it. The fact is that bullying is a part of life, just like love and hate. They are uncontrollable emotions. Only the actions therefrom can be controlled. For that, we have laws, such as assault and battery.
There are bullies in the schoolyard and also on the broader international scale. North Korea is a bully. It threatens dire consequences unless it gets his way.
I tell my kids that you cannot pacify a bully by acceding to his requests. You must not allow him to steal your lunch money. He may be bigger than you and threaten physical violence, but you must stand up against him. You will likely get beaten up but you can do considerable damage to him in the encounter. It is attitude that counts and it is almost guaranteed that the bully will no longer continue bullying you after the encounter.
The situation of North Korea bullying is more complicated. Their threat of physical violence is undefined, with respect to the recipient, but the implication is South Korea. The US is involved, because South Korea is our friend. We even fought a war against North Korea to retain the freedom of South Koreans. However, that's history. We must look at things more pragmatically in terms of the present situation. We have no actual moral obligation to defend South Korea, any more than we have a moral obligation to defend any other country in the world. Our primary responsibility is to the citizens of the United States.
North Korea is said to have a nuclear energy bomb, which we know by previous experience in our own production and use is a terrible weapon of destruction. North Korea's threats to use the atomic device is its basis of bullying. We must accept the challenge. They may actually try to use it. We hope not, but it could happen. Consider that sooner or later someone in on the world will detonate another nuclear device just as we did against Japan. We must stand up to the bullying of North Korea now.
No one What if North Korea is crazy enough to take the first step by detonating a nuclear device on the Korean Peninsula? We must retaliate, and we must say so before hand in the hope that it will deter North Korea from taking the initial action. We have shown considerable weakness in the past, which will further weaken our hand in the initial rhetoric. In short, the North Koreans may not believe this but we should do our best to convince them of our resolve. What is our resolve? If they detonate a nuclear device over a populated area, we will use better devices in wiping out the whole population of North Korea, with hopefully as little ancillary destruction as possible.
We certainly don't want a complete international nuclear war, which would essentially destroy all world population, but for that to happen, China and Russia would have to be participants. To avoid that, we must have serious talks with China and Russia beforehand to determine whether they would generally be in agreement with our intention to confront the bully or whether they in turn would contribute to the bullying by threatening use of their own atomic weaponry. That would be a case for reconsideration of the secondary bullying, because the stakes would be too high. It would be mutual destruction. A bullied kid can live with a bloodied nose to counteract a bullying situation, but if the confrontation would lead to the death of both contestants, the stakes are too high.
The world can presently live with an absence of South Korea and North Korea, if that appears necessary. It can't continue if we are all gone.
If we don't take action now, the bullying action of North Korea and acceding to their demands will eventually place them in a position of extreme atomic military power, equivalent to the US, China and Russia. Confronting the bully at that time would be impossible. We confronted the Nazi bully in World War II, but the stakes were low. Not all populations were at risk. Mutual atomic construction is another matter. It is suicide.
Face up to North Korea now or it becomes worse if not impossible.
Example of Ineffective Socialism
Here is a homegrown example of how socialism doesn't work!
Giving Thanks for the Free Market
As truly an American holiday as Thanksgiving is, it was not actually made a formal federal holiday until 1941. And it wasn’t even routinely celebrated nationally on the fourth Thursday of every November until after President Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Address in 1863. Still, the holiday does have a strong basis in our nation’s history—a history that is all too often left untold.
As described by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford in his diary Of Plymouth Plantation, the first Pilgrim winters in America were tough. The colonists failed to produce adequate food and shelter, and as a result, many did not survive. But eventually the colony rebounded. The Pilgrims did build sufficient homes and did plant enough crops to feed the entire colony. So great was their bounty that they celebrated with a harvest feast that eventually became the Thanksgiving holiday that we celebrate today. But what was the key to the colony’s turnaround? What drove them from poverty to prosperity? The answer may surprise you.
When the first Pilgrims founded the Plymouth Colony, all property was taken away from families and transferred to a “comone wealth.” In other words, the Pilgrims tried to do away with private property. The results were disastrous. According to Bradford, the stronger and younger men resented working for other men’s wives and children “without any recompence.” And the women forced to cook and clean for other men saw their uncompensated service as “a kind of slavery.” The system as a whole bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the Pilgrims’] benefit and comfort.” Unable to produce their own food, some settlers “became servants to the Indians,” cutting wood and fetching water in exchange for “a capful of corn.” Others tragically perished.
It was not until private property rights were restored and every man was allowed to “set corn for his own particular”that prosperity came to the colony. Bradford reported,“This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious. … [M]uch more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. … Women went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”
A profoundly religious man, Bradford saw the hand of God in the Pilgrims’ economic recovery. After witnessing this experiment “amongst godly and sober men,” Bradford concluded that the elimination of private property was incompatible with human nature. He described those who thought they could make men “happy and flourishing” by taking away their property as “vain … as if they were wiser than God.”
Today, as families across America gather to celebrate Thanksgiving, let us give thanks to God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon us. But let us also not forget the Pilgrims’ lesson on private property that all too often is forgot in Washington, D.C.
Dave Sucsy Photography
www.iStock.com/dszc
mobile email
Giving Thanks for the Free Market
As truly an American holiday as Thanksgiving is, it was not actually made a formal federal holiday until 1941. And it wasn’t even routinely celebrated nationally on the fourth Thursday of every November until after President Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Address in 1863. Still, the holiday does have a strong basis in our nation’s history—a history that is all too often left untold.
As described by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford in his diary Of Plymouth Plantation, the first Pilgrim winters in America were tough. The colonists failed to produce adequate food and shelter, and as a result, many did not survive. But eventually the colony rebounded. The Pilgrims did build sufficient homes and did plant enough crops to feed the entire colony. So great was their bounty that they celebrated with a harvest feast that eventually became the Thanksgiving holiday that we celebrate today. But what was the key to the colony’s turnaround? What drove them from poverty to prosperity? The answer may surprise you.
When the first Pilgrims founded the Plymouth Colony, all property was taken away from families and transferred to a “comone wealth.” In other words, the Pilgrims tried to do away with private property. The results were disastrous. According to Bradford, the stronger and younger men resented working for other men’s wives and children “without any recompence.” And the women forced to cook and clean for other men saw their uncompensated service as “a kind of slavery.” The system as a whole bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the Pilgrims’] benefit and comfort.” Unable to produce their own food, some settlers “became servants to the Indians,” cutting wood and fetching water in exchange for “a capful of corn.” Others tragically perished.
It was not until private property rights were restored and every man was allowed to “set corn for his own particular”that prosperity came to the colony. Bradford reported,“This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious. … [M]uch more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. … Women went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”
A profoundly religious man, Bradford saw the hand of God in the Pilgrims’ economic recovery. After witnessing this experiment “amongst godly and sober men,” Bradford concluded that the elimination of private property was incompatible with human nature. He described those who thought they could make men “happy and flourishing” by taking away their property as “vain … as if they were wiser than God.”
Today, as families across America gather to celebrate Thanksgiving, let us give thanks to God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon us. But let us also not forget the Pilgrims’ lesson on private property that all too often is forgot in Washington, D.C.
Dave Sucsy Photography
www.iStock.com/dszc
mobile email
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Congressional 9/11 Health Bill
The 911 Health Bill now being discussed in Congress is loaded with innuendo, misinformation, abusive compassion, and opportunism.
Let's start with some realism.
911 Responders to the World Trade Center disaster and other less significant disasters, have special conditions under which they work. This is contrary to normal public employment, under which OSHA has said very specific rules for private employers. However, none 11 hazards are essentially little different from those to which our military are subjected. In both cases, those people performing hazardous work are volunteers. In volunteering, they automatically accepted the risks of the job.
This is not to say that we should not give our 911 responders and our military the reasonable best of safety equipment, health benefits, and life insurance. However, it is unreasonable to expect that the public should write a blank check for every claimant who comes down the pike.
In discussing the Twin Towers Disaster, there is much talk of toxic substances. The uninitiated public is generally fearful of any reference to toxic substances, which is why promoters of the present congressional bill use the term. However, we really need to define what the toxic substances are. Are they asbestos? Carbon monoxide gas? What other? How do we know they are toxic? We have experts who study toxicity of materials and generally compare death or illness from exposure with the similar distresses of the general public. The average doctor is not an expert in diagnosing mesothelioma or asbestosis. Yet, this is necessary for determining whether a particular claimant has a justification for his claim.
It was my understanding that the reason that the Twin Towers collapsed was because the steel structure was not adequately protected from fire. Asbestos had been previously used for this in skyscraper construction, but the EPA had radically exaggerated claims of asbestos toxicity, such that deficient materials was used in the Twin Towers construction. If this is true, what is the justifications for claims relating to asbestos toxicity?
There are a lot of similar questions that need to be answered before there is a general consideration of significant money handouts to claimants. It is obvious that a person who died from being hit by a falling beam has some right to compensation, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about people who are still alive and claiming to be disabled. This is not a new area for consideration. Insurance companies have been handling disability insurance for years and have much experience with rules in determining justifiable disability payments. We should be using this expertise.
The bottom line is that 911 responders and military should have special consideration over other government employees and the public in general, with respect to health and life insurance. Private companies have supplied this benefit for years for hazardous work.
For the bill now in Congress, it should be stalled. A commission of toxicity, health, accounting, and insurance experts should be set up to define the rules of providing health and life insurance for 911 Responders, and which will separate fact from innuendo. The rules should basically establish who qualifies, the reasons for compensation and the amount of compensation, within the limits of weeding out opportunists, non-performing volunteers, and the public in general. Subsequent payments should be made retroactive, within limits, and all of this under the recognition that 911 Responders are volunteers in their jobs and have accepted the job risks.
Let's start with some realism.
911 Responders to the World Trade Center disaster and other less significant disasters, have special conditions under which they work. This is contrary to normal public employment, under which OSHA has said very specific rules for private employers. However, none 11 hazards are essentially little different from those to which our military are subjected. In both cases, those people performing hazardous work are volunteers. In volunteering, they automatically accepted the risks of the job.
This is not to say that we should not give our 911 responders and our military the reasonable best of safety equipment, health benefits, and life insurance. However, it is unreasonable to expect that the public should write a blank check for every claimant who comes down the pike.
In discussing the Twin Towers Disaster, there is much talk of toxic substances. The uninitiated public is generally fearful of any reference to toxic substances, which is why promoters of the present congressional bill use the term. However, we really need to define what the toxic substances are. Are they asbestos? Carbon monoxide gas? What other? How do we know they are toxic? We have experts who study toxicity of materials and generally compare death or illness from exposure with the similar distresses of the general public. The average doctor is not an expert in diagnosing mesothelioma or asbestosis. Yet, this is necessary for determining whether a particular claimant has a justification for his claim.
It was my understanding that the reason that the Twin Towers collapsed was because the steel structure was not adequately protected from fire. Asbestos had been previously used for this in skyscraper construction, but the EPA had radically exaggerated claims of asbestos toxicity, such that deficient materials was used in the Twin Towers construction. If this is true, what is the justifications for claims relating to asbestos toxicity?
There are a lot of similar questions that need to be answered before there is a general consideration of significant money handouts to claimants. It is obvious that a person who died from being hit by a falling beam has some right to compensation, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about people who are still alive and claiming to be disabled. This is not a new area for consideration. Insurance companies have been handling disability insurance for years and have much experience with rules in determining justifiable disability payments. We should be using this expertise.
The bottom line is that 911 responders and military should have special consideration over other government employees and the public in general, with respect to health and life insurance. Private companies have supplied this benefit for years for hazardous work.
For the bill now in Congress, it should be stalled. A commission of toxicity, health, accounting, and insurance experts should be set up to define the rules of providing health and life insurance for 911 Responders, and which will separate fact from innuendo. The rules should basically establish who qualifies, the reasons for compensation and the amount of compensation, within the limits of weeding out opportunists, non-performing volunteers, and the public in general. Subsequent payments should be made retroactive, within limits, and all of this under the recognition that 911 Responders are volunteers in their jobs and have accepted the job risks.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Why North Korea Does What It Does
EIN News says, "Deciphering Clues to North Korea's Mysteries. North Korea's Kim Jong Il may be using recent military incidents and the unveiling of a new nuclear facility to accelerate the transfer of power to his 26-year-old son and secure his own legacy by getting a peace treaty that cements North Korea's legitimacy, according to senior U.S. officials who closely follow the Hermit Kingdom. (msnbc.msn.com)".
That's a load of gobbledygook, which is typical of the imaginative thinking of the US State Department.
The more obvious likelihood is the scenario of the spoiled child, who in continually acting up, gets what he wants.
That's a load of gobbledygook, which is typical of the imaginative thinking of the US State Department.
The more obvious likelihood is the scenario of the spoiled child, who in continually acting up, gets what he wants.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Hooray for Private Enterprise Efficiency
EIN News says, "AGL Resources to Buy Nicor for $2.4 Billion. AGL Resources, a major natural gas distributor in the U.S. Southeast, said it will buy peer Nicor Inc for about $2.4 billion in cash and stock, nearly doubling its customers at a time of surging gas production in the country. (reuters.com)".
See how nicely private industry can react to opportunities, which will presumably benefit itself and customers. Organization and consolidation are the keys to efficiency. If you don't initially believe in this, look at the operation of most African countries and the Middle East, where tribal warfare prevails without any standard of living progress.
Notice that the purchase does not involve government assistance in any form. The only role the government needs to play in this is to be sure that the controlling industry does not create a monopoly which works to the disadvantage of the public. It is for this reason that we have antitrust laws. It is government's job to see that any significant monopoly is prosecuted. It should do so gone on the basis of anticipation, but rather when it sees an actual infraction of antitrust laws.
See how nicely private industry can react to opportunities, which will presumably benefit itself and customers. Organization and consolidation are the keys to efficiency. If you don't initially believe in this, look at the operation of most African countries and the Middle East, where tribal warfare prevails without any standard of living progress.
Notice that the purchase does not involve government assistance in any form. The only role the government needs to play in this is to be sure that the controlling industry does not create a monopoly which works to the disadvantage of the public. It is for this reason that we have antitrust laws. It is government's job to see that any significant monopoly is prosecuted. It should do so gone on the basis of anticipation, but rather when it sees an actual infraction of antitrust laws.
Advise Lame-Duck Democrats You Will Undo Their Recent Work in January
Open letter to Representative Neugebauer:
I have read your latest newsletter.
Tell your House Democratic Associates that they are wasting their time in the lame-duck session by passing things, with which you do not agree.
In January, when you have full control of the House, your first order of business will be to undo Communistic/Socialistic actions of the lame-duck session. You will simultaneously explain to the American public why you are doing so. For example, you will change the straight extension of unemployment benefits, to a sliding scale. You will explain that to the people as a change necessary to reduce free riders and to give added incentive to the legitimately unemployed to take available jobs, even though those jobs may not be up to the caliber of previous employment. The longer people are out of work, the less likely they are to find satisfactory employment..
I have read your latest newsletter.
Tell your House Democratic Associates that they are wasting their time in the lame-duck session by passing things, with which you do not agree.
In January, when you have full control of the House, your first order of business will be to undo Communistic/Socialistic actions of the lame-duck session. You will simultaneously explain to the American public why you are doing so. For example, you will change the straight extension of unemployment benefits, to a sliding scale. You will explain that to the people as a change necessary to reduce free riders and to give added incentive to the legitimately unemployed to take available jobs, even though those jobs may not be up to the caliber of previous employment. The longer people are out of work, the less likely they are to find satisfactory employment..
Anti-Socialists in Congress Need Better PR
Open letter to Representative Randy Neugebauer:
You anti-Communist/Socialists in Washington need better PR.
Why do you let the Communist/Socialists continue to get away with saying that they are opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy? This incites jealousy and obtains the support of many voters to the Communist/Socialist cause. They also build on this by saying that the country can't afford this additional debt of tax reduction to the rich.
As you well know, an extension of the Bush tax cuts is a maintenance of income taxes at recent levels. It is NOT a tax increase. Similarly, maintaining a non-increase to ALL Americans is an anticipated increase of tax revenues, through improvements in the economy. This has been historically shown to be accurate.
If you need a simplistic statement, say that you are extending a tax increase to those people and organizations who make jobs, which is the fundamental need of our society. Do not allow use of financial class distinction, such as people who have more than two pairs of shoes or cars newer than 2010, to cloud the vision of the general public.
You anti-Communist/Socialists in Washington need better PR.
Why do you let the Communist/Socialists continue to get away with saying that they are opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy? This incites jealousy and obtains the support of many voters to the Communist/Socialist cause. They also build on this by saying that the country can't afford this additional debt of tax reduction to the rich.
As you well know, an extension of the Bush tax cuts is a maintenance of income taxes at recent levels. It is NOT a tax increase. Similarly, maintaining a non-increase to ALL Americans is an anticipated increase of tax revenues, through improvements in the economy. This has been historically shown to be accurate.
If you need a simplistic statement, say that you are extending a tax increase to those people and organizations who make jobs, which is the fundamental need of our society. Do not allow use of financial class distinction, such as people who have more than two pairs of shoes or cars newer than 2010, to cloud the vision of the general public.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Kill the Dream Act
We all know that a dream is a fantasy. It has little basis in fact and in most cases an impossibility of realization. I dream that I am President of the United States. I also dream that I am standing at the top of Mount Everest. Does that mean that I should be making plans to fulfill those dreams? Should I expect that the taxpayers give me a grant so that I can organize a trip to the top of Mount Everest?
Forget the Dream Act. It's a ridiculous consideration brought about by super liberalism and compassion abuse. Every dollar that would be spent on fostering the education of an illegal person (child or adult) is a dollar out of the pocket of the public who would have no say on whether to make that contribution. There is plenty of room for private donations by people who could support this. Do not engage in the consistent socialistic principle of making laws to spend other people's money, whether they agree or not.
Kill the Dream Act. Make it dead, dead, dead. Children born in the US are citizens and have a right of opportunity. Children not born in the US have no basis for opportunity in this country and should not be considered for taxpayer grants.
Let us remember that the whole basis of our growth through immigration was to accept people who could immediately contribute to the economic growth of the country. In the main, they had already received their education abroad and were able to then use it for opportunities in the US. People without skills were not previously accepted. Yes, we can change that policy. We can now accept any poor person who can bum a ride to the United States or scale a wall in the Southwest. Would this be the way we want to expand the standard of living of our citizenry? It wouldn't work. It would be a national redistribution of wealth. All citizens would become poorer as they support Dream Act noncitizens.
I have a rule of thumb for my life. I first take care of myself. After that and through the strength which I have achieved, I've been able to help others. I have seen the weak try to help the weak. It doesn't work. They both go down the tube. My way can also work on a national basis.
Forget the Dream Act. It's a ridiculous consideration brought about by super liberalism and compassion abuse. Every dollar that would be spent on fostering the education of an illegal person (child or adult) is a dollar out of the pocket of the public who would have no say on whether to make that contribution. There is plenty of room for private donations by people who could support this. Do not engage in the consistent socialistic principle of making laws to spend other people's money, whether they agree or not.
Kill the Dream Act. Make it dead, dead, dead. Children born in the US are citizens and have a right of opportunity. Children not born in the US have no basis for opportunity in this country and should not be considered for taxpayer grants.
Let us remember that the whole basis of our growth through immigration was to accept people who could immediately contribute to the economic growth of the country. In the main, they had already received their education abroad and were able to then use it for opportunities in the US. People without skills were not previously accepted. Yes, we can change that policy. We can now accept any poor person who can bum a ride to the United States or scale a wall in the Southwest. Would this be the way we want to expand the standard of living of our citizenry? It wouldn't work. It would be a national redistribution of wealth. All citizens would become poorer as they support Dream Act noncitizens.
I have a rule of thumb for my life. I first take care of myself. After that and through the strength which I have achieved, I've been able to help others. I have seen the weak try to help the weak. It doesn't work. They both go down the tube. My way can also work on a national basis.
Can We Compete with China and Russia?
C&EN's quote of the week is, "We may just press the pause button here for several years. But China is pressing the fast-forward button."
I will now add to that. "We have been eating political cheese for years, and we are now constipated."
The opportunities for private enterprise are now in China and Russia. Not in the US or Western Europe.
The reason for this is that China and Russia never established impediments to private industry. In their recent history of Communism/Socialism, private industry did not exist and therefore did not require any restrictions. Private industry now has a clear field in those countries.
Contrarily in the United States, we have continued year after year to establish private industry restrictions and have now reached the constipation stage. If private industry wants to do anything fast, they do it in China or Russia. It can't be done in the United States.
This does not necessarily mean that we are doomed to become a third world country equivalent to West Africa. It only means that we have to work twice as hard as China and Russia, because we must first undo all of the damage that was done in past years. However, before we can start on such a program, we must first recognize the problem, in government and in the people. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and they are us."
Government is always in the leadership position. If it maintains its policy, as we have continued for the last two administrations and even before, it will become doomsday. First need is for government to recognize the requirement to do an about-face. It is doubtful that this will occur through the Present Administration. Our only hope is to get some kind of immediate response by a strong Congress. There's always a possibility of a new Administration in 2012, but every day that we wait is to our disadvantage.
I will now add to that. "We have been eating political cheese for years, and we are now constipated."
The opportunities for private enterprise are now in China and Russia. Not in the US or Western Europe.
The reason for this is that China and Russia never established impediments to private industry. In their recent history of Communism/Socialism, private industry did not exist and therefore did not require any restrictions. Private industry now has a clear field in those countries.
Contrarily in the United States, we have continued year after year to establish private industry restrictions and have now reached the constipation stage. If private industry wants to do anything fast, they do it in China or Russia. It can't be done in the United States.
This does not necessarily mean that we are doomed to become a third world country equivalent to West Africa. It only means that we have to work twice as hard as China and Russia, because we must first undo all of the damage that was done in past years. However, before we can start on such a program, we must first recognize the problem, in government and in the people. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and they are us."
Government is always in the leadership position. If it maintains its policy, as we have continued for the last two administrations and even before, it will become doomsday. First need is for government to recognize the requirement to do an about-face. It is doubtful that this will occur through the Present Administration. Our only hope is to get some kind of immediate response by a strong Congress. There's always a possibility of a new Administration in 2012, but every day that we wait is to our disadvantage.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Competitive Russia
EIN News says, "Below Surface, U.S. Has Dim View of Putin and Russia. Early in 2009, as recession rippled around the world, the United States Embassy in Moscow sent to Washington a cable summarizing whispers within Russia's political class. Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, the rumors said, often did not show up at his office. (nytimes.com).
Naturally, the US government would have a dim view of Putin and Russia. They are world competitors. Russian power is variable from time to time, which makes them variable weak and strong competitors. Early in Reagan's Administration, Russia was in a seemingly powerful position as controller of the Soviet Union. Reagan put the kibosh on that by being able to outspend them on defense issues. That led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Competitive Russia The situation is now radically different, Russia has been able to reorganize since the Soviet Union collapse, and the US is fallen into poverty. The US Administration will not admit its deficiency, and the strong arm of jealousy now prevails.
It is ridiculous to even talk about Putin often not showing up at his office. I say that if he always showed up at his office, he would not doing his job. An office is a base of operations. It's not a place to continually rest your butt.
In its reorganization, Russia has come to realize the advantages of capitalism and is moving in that direction. The recent partnership with Shell Oil in developing Siberian fossil fuels and also allowing the Russians to operate in areas outside of their own territory is likely a thorn in the Obama Administration's side. The US has basically become more socialistic/communistic than Russia. There is still an opportunity for the U. S. Congress and the public to turn this around. The world is a competitive place. Let's not spend time criticizing our competitors. Rather we should become more capable competitors ourselves.
Naturally, the US government would have a dim view of Putin and Russia. They are world competitors. Russian power is variable from time to time, which makes them variable weak and strong competitors. Early in Reagan's Administration, Russia was in a seemingly powerful position as controller of the Soviet Union. Reagan put the kibosh on that by being able to outspend them on defense issues. That led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Competitive Russia The situation is now radically different, Russia has been able to reorganize since the Soviet Union collapse, and the US is fallen into poverty. The US Administration will not admit its deficiency, and the strong arm of jealousy now prevails.
It is ridiculous to even talk about Putin often not showing up at his office. I say that if he always showed up at his office, he would not doing his job. An office is a base of operations. It's not a place to continually rest your butt.
In its reorganization, Russia has come to realize the advantages of capitalism and is moving in that direction. The recent partnership with Shell Oil in developing Siberian fossil fuels and also allowing the Russians to operate in areas outside of their own territory is likely a thorn in the Obama Administration's side. The US has basically become more socialistic/communistic than Russia. There is still an opportunity for the U. S. Congress and the public to turn this around. The world is a competitive place. Let's not spend time criticizing our competitors. Rather we should become more capable competitors ourselves.
Monday, November 29, 2010
E-Mails to the President's Staff
Open letter to President Obama's Staff:
You say the President has promised the most transparent administration in history, and the staff is said to be committed to listening to and responding to me.
If that is true, why does the staff use an obtuse method of forced complication through a website in order to send a message to the President?
Is there something wrong with revealing a straightforward e-mail address, or does the staff intentionally use a method by which it can discourage communication?
You say the President has promised the most transparent administration in history, and the staff is said to be committed to listening to and responding to me.
If that is true, why does the staff use an obtuse method of forced complication through a website in order to send a message to the President?
Is there something wrong with revealing a straightforward e-mail address, or does the staff intentionally use a method by which it can discourage communication?
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Bullying
We hear a lot about bullying these days. Most of it is ridiculous. It becomes absurd, when there is even consideration for government involvement. I caution government representatives to stay out of it. It will lead only to emotional trauma.
To better understand bullying, let's consider what it really is. It is a technique by which a person or group attempts to gain power over another individual or group through threat of violence or other undesirable result. The bully expects that his target subject is then amenable to granting concessions.
Here are some examples of bullying. A fifth grader threatens to punch a fourth grader, unless the fourth-grader gives up his allowance. North Korea threatens to use nuclear weapons and actually uses standard artillery to convince South Korea and the US to make economic concessions. Government threatens the public with dire financial collapse, unless they approve massive bailouts. A male boss threatens a female employee with demotion or firing unless she accedes to his sexual requests.
There are commonalities in all of the above scenes. The first is the desire for power on the part of the bully, as already mentioned. The second involves the person or group being bullied. If that person or group agrees to the bully's demands, a bullying situation is executed. However, if that same person or group does not agree to the bully's demands, a contest develops, in which it is likely that the bully will back down.
The key point is that life is full of bullying situations. Children must be taught to stand up for themselves at some physical risk. And so learning, they then become able to handle more complex bullying situations as adults. Any society which is taught that bullying situations can be alleviated by a higher power, is doomed to destruction. An over-protective parent who comes to the defense of his child in a bullying situation at school, on the sports field, or wherever, is not allowing his child to grow to handle adult problems. In such situations, a parent should be an observer and not interfere with the attempted bullying process. If a child accedes to a bullying request, he learns to pay the penalty. If he does not exceed the learns that he himself has personal power.
This is a situation of personal life in which government, including schools, have no business operating. It is an area that must be reserved for the general public, particularly parents in the teaching of their children. It should be accepted that bullying will never be eliminated. It is a fact of life and people must learn to deal with it.
To better understand bullying, let's consider what it really is. It is a technique by which a person or group attempts to gain power over another individual or group through threat of violence or other undesirable result. The bully expects that his target subject is then amenable to granting concessions.
Here are some examples of bullying. A fifth grader threatens to punch a fourth grader, unless the fourth-grader gives up his allowance. North Korea threatens to use nuclear weapons and actually uses standard artillery to convince South Korea and the US to make economic concessions. Government threatens the public with dire financial collapse, unless they approve massive bailouts. A male boss threatens a female employee with demotion or firing unless she accedes to his sexual requests.
There are commonalities in all of the above scenes. The first is the desire for power on the part of the bully, as already mentioned. The second involves the person or group being bullied. If that person or group agrees to the bully's demands, a bullying situation is executed. However, if that same person or group does not agree to the bully's demands, a contest develops, in which it is likely that the bully will back down.
The key point is that life is full of bullying situations. Children must be taught to stand up for themselves at some physical risk. And so learning, they then become able to handle more complex bullying situations as adults. Any society which is taught that bullying situations can be alleviated by a higher power, is doomed to destruction. An over-protective parent who comes to the defense of his child in a bullying situation at school, on the sports field, or wherever, is not allowing his child to grow to handle adult problems. In such situations, a parent should be an observer and not interfere with the attempted bullying process. If a child accedes to a bullying request, he learns to pay the penalty. If he does not exceed the learns that he himself has personal power.
This is a situation of personal life in which government, including schools, have no business operating. It is an area that must be reserved for the general public, particularly parents in the teaching of their children. It should be accepted that bullying will never be eliminated. It is a fact of life and people must learn to deal with it.
Terrorism Is Alive and Well in the US
How do I know that terrorism is alive and well in the US? Because I can see that it is working. Another terrorist activity has been reported on the news this morning. Mohamed Osman Mohamud attempted to blow-up what he thought was an explosive-packed van during a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, OR. While there failed to be an explosion, it scares the pants off the American public, which is one of the objectives of terrorism and why it is on the national television news.
While there is hardly a day that goes by without some aspect of terrorism being reported either directly and indirectly, this is a significant increase compared to our historical experience. In effect, terrorism is working.
One of the major reasons that terrorism is working is an abuse of compassion on the part of the American public combined with an unrealistic attitude with respect to personal liberties. When a civilian jury in New York finds a terrorist guilty on only one of a large number of charges, it is apparent that there is something wrong with the system. In effect, the American public doesn't like terrorism in any form, but doesn't have the will to do anything about it, because of ambiguous emotional feelings. When the picture of a terrorist is portrayed on TV, most of the public will say, "Isn't he a sweet looking man. He couldn't have done anything like that. I think he is being framed by government."
As you have noted from my previous correspondence, I am normally not a supporter of big government or most of the actions of our present government. However, in its present activities to control terrorism, through infiltration into terrorist societies, electronic scans and pat downs at airports, it is doing a reasonable job, in spite of the fact that it has to fight the American public to do so. The bottom line is that if left to the American public, terrorism will continue to grow and ultimately achieve a status of success which will make the New York 911 situation mild by comparison.
Therefore, we need a new program. First, we need to take the legal prosecution of terrorists out of the hands of American juries. Terrorists are enemy combatants, no matter what their nationality, age, sex, ethnic origin, etc.. As such, they must be prosecuted by military courts, and those military courts must be immune to political pressures coming from the American public. In the prosecution, a new classification of charge must be established. I suggest, "Intent to commit mass murder". We can leave it up to military lawyers to establish definitions, but murder means killing people. Mass means more than one, whether defined or not. Intent means having put into place some physical means by which to accomplish the murder.
When an alleged terrorist is apprehended, he must be tried by a military court within two weeks of the apprehension. The trial must last no longer than two days. If the alleged terrorist is found innocent, he should be immediately released, but continually surveyed by law enforcement authorities. If found guilty, he should be executed within two days of the guilty verdict. There should be no process of appeal nor life prison sentence.
Let's get the ball moving. There should be no public announcement, because we've seen that the public can't be trusted to do the right thing in this matter. Too bad that we have to go through Congress, which already involves a lot of people, but that is our system of government. In World War II, two people decided to build an atomic bomb. President Roosevelt and General Groves. But that was a time of war. Perhaps Congress should start this whole ball rolling by declaring war against terrorism.
While there is hardly a day that goes by without some aspect of terrorism being reported either directly and indirectly, this is a significant increase compared to our historical experience. In effect, terrorism is working.
One of the major reasons that terrorism is working is an abuse of compassion on the part of the American public combined with an unrealistic attitude with respect to personal liberties. When a civilian jury in New York finds a terrorist guilty on only one of a large number of charges, it is apparent that there is something wrong with the system. In effect, the American public doesn't like terrorism in any form, but doesn't have the will to do anything about it, because of ambiguous emotional feelings. When the picture of a terrorist is portrayed on TV, most of the public will say, "Isn't he a sweet looking man. He couldn't have done anything like that. I think he is being framed by government."
As you have noted from my previous correspondence, I am normally not a supporter of big government or most of the actions of our present government. However, in its present activities to control terrorism, through infiltration into terrorist societies, electronic scans and pat downs at airports, it is doing a reasonable job, in spite of the fact that it has to fight the American public to do so. The bottom line is that if left to the American public, terrorism will continue to grow and ultimately achieve a status of success which will make the New York 911 situation mild by comparison.
Therefore, we need a new program. First, we need to take the legal prosecution of terrorists out of the hands of American juries. Terrorists are enemy combatants, no matter what their nationality, age, sex, ethnic origin, etc.. As such, they must be prosecuted by military courts, and those military courts must be immune to political pressures coming from the American public. In the prosecution, a new classification of charge must be established. I suggest, "Intent to commit mass murder". We can leave it up to military lawyers to establish definitions, but murder means killing people. Mass means more than one, whether defined or not. Intent means having put into place some physical means by which to accomplish the murder.
When an alleged terrorist is apprehended, he must be tried by a military court within two weeks of the apprehension. The trial must last no longer than two days. If the alleged terrorist is found innocent, he should be immediately released, but continually surveyed by law enforcement authorities. If found guilty, he should be executed within two days of the guilty verdict. There should be no process of appeal nor life prison sentence.
Let's get the ball moving. There should be no public announcement, because we've seen that the public can't be trusted to do the right thing in this matter. Too bad that we have to go through Congress, which already involves a lot of people, but that is our system of government. In World War II, two people decided to build an atomic bomb. President Roosevelt and General Groves. But that was a time of war. Perhaps Congress should start this whole ball rolling by declaring war against terrorism.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Hit Terrorism Hard at the Source
E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I read your latest newsletter.
We agree that terrorism is a threat to the US population. It will likely continue forever. Similar to viral contamination, it cannot be eliminated. It must be continually controlled.
We need to reduce terrorism activity. One of the most urgent aspects is now to reduce activities in Yemen. To accomplish this, we need to stop pussyfooting around with the Yemen government, which has already proven that it is either incapable or has no interest in eliminating terrorist bases within its borders. You do this by telling the Yemen government that they have a certain time in which to achieve specified results, or you will act independently, probably with bombs and missiles rather than ground forces. Are you doing anything along these lines with respect to petitioning our State Department and Military or are you just writing about it in newsletters to voters?
I voted "no" on your question of the week concerning whether I am willing to pay more for shipping. I also note that 65% of the responders voted "yes". I believe they did so on the presumption that terrorism from foreign sources cannot be controlled at the source, but must be controlled at the borders of the US. From my previous paragraph, you will note that I disagree completely with that premise. Control them at the source!!
It appears that you are a shu-in for reelection in today's voting. May I also remind you that the Tea Party is supporting Republicans on a conditional basis. Tea Party representatives have said that Republicans are "on trial".
We now must go back to the old "saw". You have heard from the public that we are opposed to "the unprecedented levels of government spending and debt. The rapidly growing federal bureaucracy and harmful new EPA regulations were also common conversation topics. Many of you are hoping that Congress will pass much-needed tax relief for working families and small businesses before the end of the year." I notice again that you give no indication of what you actually plan to do about it, other than perhaps sympathize.
I read your latest newsletter.
We agree that terrorism is a threat to the US population. It will likely continue forever. Similar to viral contamination, it cannot be eliminated. It must be continually controlled.
We need to reduce terrorism activity. One of the most urgent aspects is now to reduce activities in Yemen. To accomplish this, we need to stop pussyfooting around with the Yemen government, which has already proven that it is either incapable or has no interest in eliminating terrorist bases within its borders. You do this by telling the Yemen government that they have a certain time in which to achieve specified results, or you will act independently, probably with bombs and missiles rather than ground forces. Are you doing anything along these lines with respect to petitioning our State Department and Military or are you just writing about it in newsletters to voters?
I voted "no" on your question of the week concerning whether I am willing to pay more for shipping. I also note that 65% of the responders voted "yes". I believe they did so on the presumption that terrorism from foreign sources cannot be controlled at the source, but must be controlled at the borders of the US. From my previous paragraph, you will note that I disagree completely with that premise. Control them at the source!!
It appears that you are a shu-in for reelection in today's voting. May I also remind you that the Tea Party is supporting Republicans on a conditional basis. Tea Party representatives have said that Republicans are "on trial".
We now must go back to the old "saw". You have heard from the public that we are opposed to "the unprecedented levels of government spending and debt. The rapidly growing federal bureaucracy and harmful new EPA regulations were also common conversation topics. Many of you are hoping that Congress will pass much-needed tax relief for working families and small businesses before the end of the year." I notice again that you give no indication of what you actually plan to do about it, other than perhaps sympathize.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Call for Action
E-mail to Representative Neugebauer:
I read your latest newsletter.
Welcoming Home, the Page Program, Service Academy Nominations, District Work Schedule, and NPR Funding are all what I consider "maintenance" parts of the job. None of these are particularly relevant to the difficulties we find ourselves in with respect to government financing, mandatory eliminations of personal rights, and especially jobs. The only one that can partially qualify is NPR Funding, which should be eliminated to save a few dollars. You merely asked the question. You didn't say what you're going to do about it.
May I again suggest that you start to concentrate on actions, which will improve our country and particularly revive capitalism and opportunity, with the elimination of previous socialistic programs.
I read your latest newsletter.
Welcoming Home, the Page Program, Service Academy Nominations, District Work Schedule, and NPR Funding are all what I consider "maintenance" parts of the job. None of these are particularly relevant to the difficulties we find ourselves in with respect to government financing, mandatory eliminations of personal rights, and especially jobs. The only one that can partially qualify is NPR Funding, which should be eliminated to save a few dollars. You merely asked the question. You didn't say what you're going to do about it.
May I again suggest that you start to concentrate on actions, which will improve our country and particularly revive capitalism and opportunity, with the elimination of previous socialistic programs.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Combat Chinese Efforts to Control Military Strategic Materials
EIN News says, "Greens Shackle National Security - And Renewable Energy 23 Oct 2010 - 10:30".
This is a bit short and somewhat obtuse as presented, but it's important. You may want to read the complete article at: http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?vid=+x2b597NdxwRpLLZ&v=61763EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM.
A summary of the situation is as follows:
Rare earths are chemical compounds of a group of chemical elements known as rare earth elements. They are used as raw materials in the production of modern technological devices. Some of these devices are stealth fighter jets, digital cameras, computer hard drives, wind turbine magnets, solar panels, hybrid and electric car batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and catalytic converters.
We previously mined much of what was needed here in the US. However the mining is difficult and labor-intensive, and production slowly moved to China, where labor costs were significantly lower. At present, the US produces essentially no rare earths and all such material required as raw materials for the above-mentioned technological devices must be imported, usually from China.
The Chinese, recognizing that they have a monopoly on the rare earth market, have decreased exports, which automatically raises prices. They presumably do this as a strategy for obtaining US taxpayer dollars, which the US government uses as subsidies for US production of modern technological devices.
In addition to this Chinese technique of extracting more dollars from the American taxpayer, through the US federal government subsidies, the US is placed in a more vulnerable military position by market imposed restrictions in the manufacture of essential military hardware, some of which is listed above.
We have previously faced similar situations. Prior to World War I, most chemical production was in Germany. At the onset of the war, the US was deprived of imports of those chemicals required for the war effort, and it required some time and effort to establish any significant chemical production here in the US. For this reason, the military has defined some essentials materials as "strategic". For example, crude oil is a strategic material, for which reason the military has a stockpile.
While I am opposed to most of the operations of big government, it is the federal government responsibility to take action for the protection of the American public against foreign powers. This includes maintaining sufficient military power to combat any physical invasion, and that power is likely to require sufficient military hardware, which is produced using rare earths as a raw material.
The obvious action that must be taken by the US government to neutralize the Chinese initiative is to immediately declare rare earths "strategic" materials and impose a significant import duty, such that the price automatically rises to a level where US mining companies can again justify a productive position and thereby guarantee independence from foreign sources to the advantage of controlling our ability to produce military hardware.
The Chinese reaction to this will be to allow increased exports from China, which will tend to lower rare earth prices and keep production in China. However, as the Chinese take such action which will lower prices, we must continue to increase import duties to justify US mining companies to produce in the US.
This program will be difficult for the Obama Administration to swallow, since it is contradictory to its efforts to redistribute wealth on a worldwide basis, including giving Chinese miners continued employment. However I am not concerned with Chinese miners. They can find something else to do. Meanwhile, I want to have a strong military, including hardware, to protect the American public from foreign invasion and also to create jobs for American miners.
This is a bit short and somewhat obtuse as presented, but it's important. You may want to read the complete article at: http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?vid=+x2b597NdxwRpLLZ&v=61763EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM.
A summary of the situation is as follows:
Rare earths are chemical compounds of a group of chemical elements known as rare earth elements. They are used as raw materials in the production of modern technological devices. Some of these devices are stealth fighter jets, digital cameras, computer hard drives, wind turbine magnets, solar panels, hybrid and electric car batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and catalytic converters.
We previously mined much of what was needed here in the US. However the mining is difficult and labor-intensive, and production slowly moved to China, where labor costs were significantly lower. At present, the US produces essentially no rare earths and all such material required as raw materials for the above-mentioned technological devices must be imported, usually from China.
The Chinese, recognizing that they have a monopoly on the rare earth market, have decreased exports, which automatically raises prices. They presumably do this as a strategy for obtaining US taxpayer dollars, which the US government uses as subsidies for US production of modern technological devices.
In addition to this Chinese technique of extracting more dollars from the American taxpayer, through the US federal government subsidies, the US is placed in a more vulnerable military position by market imposed restrictions in the manufacture of essential military hardware, some of which is listed above.
We have previously faced similar situations. Prior to World War I, most chemical production was in Germany. At the onset of the war, the US was deprived of imports of those chemicals required for the war effort, and it required some time and effort to establish any significant chemical production here in the US. For this reason, the military has defined some essentials materials as "strategic". For example, crude oil is a strategic material, for which reason the military has a stockpile.
While I am opposed to most of the operations of big government, it is the federal government responsibility to take action for the protection of the American public against foreign powers. This includes maintaining sufficient military power to combat any physical invasion, and that power is likely to require sufficient military hardware, which is produced using rare earths as a raw material.
The obvious action that must be taken by the US government to neutralize the Chinese initiative is to immediately declare rare earths "strategic" materials and impose a significant import duty, such that the price automatically rises to a level where US mining companies can again justify a productive position and thereby guarantee independence from foreign sources to the advantage of controlling our ability to produce military hardware.
The Chinese reaction to this will be to allow increased exports from China, which will tend to lower rare earth prices and keep production in China. However, as the Chinese take such action which will lower prices, we must continue to increase import duties to justify US mining companies to produce in the US.
This program will be difficult for the Obama Administration to swallow, since it is contradictory to its efforts to redistribute wealth on a worldwide basis, including giving Chinese miners continued employment. However I am not concerned with Chinese miners. They can find something else to do. Meanwhile, I want to have a strong military, including hardware, to protect the American public from foreign invasion and also to create jobs for American miners.
Friday, October 22, 2010
We Should Not Be Spending Money on Nationbuilding
EIN News says, "U.S. to Cut Aid to Pakistan Military Units Over Human Rights Abuses. The U.S. government plans to cut military aid to several Pakistani military units as punishment for human rights abuses, including torture and extrajudicial executions, according to senior officials. (guardian.co.uk)".
Good move for the wrong reason. We should not be giving military aid to Pakistan or any other country. We are not in the business of nationbuilding. We have enough difficulty right now in rebuilding our own nation from the serious destruction caused by Democratic/Socialistic actions.
Human rights abuses, including torture and extrajudicial executions, will continue on a worldwide basis no matter what the US government thinks or does. The answer is to maintain within the US a constitutional human rights program, and invite immigration on a controlled basis to those persons who are being subjected to those hardships in their home countries. Simultaneously, we must consider a limitation on numbers and quality of immigrants. This is no different than persons trying to take in all available stray cats and dogs, when those persons are unable to handle their own livelihood.
Good move for the wrong reason. We should not be giving military aid to Pakistan or any other country. We are not in the business of nationbuilding. We have enough difficulty right now in rebuilding our own nation from the serious destruction caused by Democratic/Socialistic actions.
Human rights abuses, including torture and extrajudicial executions, will continue on a worldwide basis no matter what the US government thinks or does. The answer is to maintain within the US a constitutional human rights program, and invite immigration on a controlled basis to those persons who are being subjected to those hardships in their home countries. Simultaneously, we must consider a limitation on numbers and quality of immigrants. This is no different than persons trying to take in all available stray cats and dogs, when those persons are unable to handle their own livelihood.
We Need Trust in Government
EIN News says, "Iraq Province Says Foreign Gas Firms Are Unwelcome. Authorities in a western Iraqi province rejected the results of this week's government-organized gas auction, which allowed a pair of foreign companies to develop a big deposit on its territory. (yahoo.com)".
This confirms what I said a few days ago, which was that there was very little participation in the bidding because potential bidders did not trust the Iraqi government.
I maintain my more important point from this lesson, which is that the US must reestablish trust in government by its citizenry. We should do that by simplifying verbiage in our laws, not quibbling about details or establishing exceptions, reducing the size of government, and having government involved only in those matters for which government is needed.
This confirms what I said a few days ago, which was that there was very little participation in the bidding because potential bidders did not trust the Iraqi government.
I maintain my more important point from this lesson, which is that the US must reestablish trust in government by its citizenry. We should do that by simplifying verbiage in our laws, not quibbling about details or establishing exceptions, reducing the size of government, and having government involved only in those matters for which government is needed.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Lack of Trust in Government Inhibits Development
EIN News says, " Iraq Offers Up Three Gas Fields to Global Firms. Iraq auctioned off three major natural gas fields to international companies, part of its strategy to shake off a legacy of war and isolation by opening up the lucrative sector. (reuters.com)
Only five companies submitted bids for Iraq gas fields. Only one bid submitted for second-largest field on offer."
The reason for the low participation is clear. Drilling companies do not trust the government.
You may want to take the page from that book. When citizens and private companies do not trust government, including individuals in power, they will not cooperate.
That position has been arrived at not only in Iraq but also in the US. You must do something about it. The key word is "integrity".
Only five companies submitted bids for Iraq gas fields. Only one bid submitted for second-largest field on offer."
The reason for the low participation is clear. Drilling companies do not trust the government.
You may want to take the page from that book. When citizens and private companies do not trust government, including individuals in power, they will not cooperate.
That position has been arrived at not only in Iraq but also in the US. You must do something about it. The key word is "integrity".
Let's Stop Nation Building
EIN News says, "Afghanistan Cancels 1.3 Million Parliamentary Votes. Afghan election authorities canceled 1.3 million votes in last month's parliamentary election, nearly a quarter of the 5.6 million ballots cast, the country's top electoral officer said. (yahoo.com).
Were there 1.3 million fraudulent votes or did the election authorities fraudulently cancel 1.3 million valid votes? This will not be discernible, but it is clear that big-time fraud is involved.
Are we supposed to be educating these people to honesty? We have tremendous problems in this area ourselves.
The valid answer is we should be concentrating on our own Western interpretation of honesty in our culture. Middle East culture has been what it is for many hundreds or even thousands of years. Their interpretation of honesty is much different than in the Western world.
We will not be able to change the culture of the Afghanis. Get out of there now and leave them to resolve their own problems. If their resolution seems to lead to terrorist activities in the United States, eliminate training camps and terrorist leaders through surgical military strikes.
Were there 1.3 million fraudulent votes or did the election authorities fraudulently cancel 1.3 million valid votes? This will not be discernible, but it is clear that big-time fraud is involved.
Are we supposed to be educating these people to honesty? We have tremendous problems in this area ourselves.
The valid answer is we should be concentrating on our own Western interpretation of honesty in our culture. Middle East culture has been what it is for many hundreds or even thousands of years. Their interpretation of honesty is much different than in the Western world.
We will not be able to change the culture of the Afghanis. Get out of there now and leave them to resolve their own problems. If their resolution seems to lead to terrorist activities in the United States, eliminate training camps and terrorist leaders through surgical military strikes.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Rep. Randy Neugebauer's Newsletter
Randy,
I read your latest newsletter.
We have known for some time all the things that are wrong. We don't need to be reminded of them. We need to know what you are doing to correct them.
There is no need for you to be involved in Breast Cancer Month. That's a project for private industry. You need to start reducing the restrictions on private industry so that they can move ahead to do their jobs.
We don't need to know where you will be traveling. We already know your position on various subjects. We need to know what you're doing for corrective action.
I read your latest newsletter.
We have known for some time all the things that are wrong. We don't need to be reminded of them. We need to know what you are doing to correct them.
There is no need for you to be involved in Breast Cancer Month. That's a project for private industry. You need to start reducing the restrictions on private industry so that they can move ahead to do their jobs.
We don't need to know where you will be traveling. We already know your position on various subjects. We need to know what you're doing for corrective action.
Borrow from Muslim Countries in Order to Give Them Grants
EIN News says, "As Peace Talks Sway, Questions Arise About U.S. Influence in Mideast. With talks between Israel and the Palestinians in limbo, those in the region are wondering whether the U.S. has lost the necessary muscle to have influence on players across the Middle East. (cnn.com)".
That's probably correct. Our previous "muscle" was to persuade them not to argue by giving them money. It's a little harder to do these days. Perhaps we can borrow from the Muslim countries in order to be able to continue the grants.
That's probably correct. Our previous "muscle" was to persuade them not to argue by giving them money. It's a little harder to do these days. Perhaps we can borrow from the Muslim countries in order to be able to continue the grants.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Use Drones to Kill Insurgents
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "'German Militants' Killed in U.S. Drone Attack in Pakistan. A U.S. drone strike has killed at least five German nationals in Pakistan's tribal belt as part of a rapidly escalating covert CIA campaign targeting al-Qaida's reputed global operations hub. (guardian.co.uk)."
Great! Expand the program.
EIN News says, "'German Militants' Killed in U.S. Drone Attack in Pakistan. A U.S. drone strike has killed at least five German nationals in Pakistan's tribal belt as part of a rapidly escalating covert CIA campaign targeting al-Qaida's reputed global operations hub. (guardian.co.uk)."
Great! Expand the program.
Monday, September 13, 2010
E-Mail the Congress:
EIN News says, "China to Import More Russian Coal, Lend $6 Billion. China, the world's biggest coal consumer, agreed to increase imports of the commodity from Russia by two-thirds in return for a $6 billion loan. (bloomberg.com".
An item like this could go unnoticed, but it has significant implications. Here we have the two largest Communist countries in the world engaged in a capitalistic deal.
If one of these negotiators were the US under our present Socialistic, do-good regime, i'm sure we would come out the loser. It would be one more nail in our financial coffin.
When are we going to wake up to realize we live in a competitive world? Even the Communists are out-capitalizing us.
EIN News says, "China to Import More Russian Coal, Lend $6 Billion. China, the world's biggest coal consumer, agreed to increase imports of the commodity from Russia by two-thirds in return for a $6 billion loan. (bloomberg.com".
An item like this could go unnoticed, but it has significant implications. Here we have the two largest Communist countries in the world engaged in a capitalistic deal.
If one of these negotiators were the US under our present Socialistic, do-good regime, i'm sure we would come out the loser. It would be one more nail in our financial coffin.
When are we going to wake up to realize we live in a competitive world? Even the Communists are out-capitalizing us.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Use Import Duties to Control Chinese Steel Exports to the US
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Steelworkers Want Obama to Sue China Over Green Energy Subsidy. A steel workers union in the US has filed a trade case identifying "illegal" Chinese practices that threaten America's renewable energy sector and asked the Obama Administration to sue Beijing over its green energy subsidies, a demand swiftly supported by a key Senator. (indiatimes.com)".
ABSOLUTELY! The free-trade policy of the United States is based on a level playing field. Whether we should have a free-trade policy is controversial, but we have it for many years, and as long as it exists, we and our trading partners should be living by it.
The limitation on "free-trade" is that no subsidies should be involved. When a subsidy by a foreign exporter is recognized, the US has the right and obligation to apply in import duty to at least counteract the foreign subsidy. Notice that no "legal suit" is necessary. Good business practice merely involves advising the foreign exporter that he is now being faced with a specific import duty into the United States and the reason thereof.
When I reached this point, I thought it would be a good idea to find out what agency of the United States government is responsible for establishing and enforcing custom duties. While this seemed like a relatively simple question, it took me at least three quarters of an hour wandering around in the Internet to determine that the responsibility of enforcement falls under the International Trade Administration (ITP) of the US Department of Commerce. I never was able to learn whether the ITP has the power to establish a custom duty, in addition to enforcing it. The ITP answers Internet questions concerning dumping, countervailable subsidies, and how dumping or subsidization is remedied, but the answers are generally nonspecific and never contain any indication of a mathematical import duty level.
I suppose there may be an answer somewhere, but it is well disguised and consistent with my previous opinion that government employees generally do not want to take responsibility for anything. This lets all kinds of things fall through the cracks.
Having seen continuing reports on how the Chinese government operates, I have concluded that the US has no chance in world economics competition, as long as it maintains a wishy-washy attitude of responsibility and a confused bureaucracy.
EIN News says, "Steelworkers Want Obama to Sue China Over Green Energy Subsidy. A steel workers union in the US has filed a trade case identifying "illegal" Chinese practices that threaten America's renewable energy sector and asked the Obama Administration to sue Beijing over its green energy subsidies, a demand swiftly supported by a key Senator. (indiatimes.com)".
ABSOLUTELY! The free-trade policy of the United States is based on a level playing field. Whether we should have a free-trade policy is controversial, but we have it for many years, and as long as it exists, we and our trading partners should be living by it.
The limitation on "free-trade" is that no subsidies should be involved. When a subsidy by a foreign exporter is recognized, the US has the right and obligation to apply in import duty to at least counteract the foreign subsidy. Notice that no "legal suit" is necessary. Good business practice merely involves advising the foreign exporter that he is now being faced with a specific import duty into the United States and the reason thereof.
When I reached this point, I thought it would be a good idea to find out what agency of the United States government is responsible for establishing and enforcing custom duties. While this seemed like a relatively simple question, it took me at least three quarters of an hour wandering around in the Internet to determine that the responsibility of enforcement falls under the International Trade Administration (ITP) of the US Department of Commerce. I never was able to learn whether the ITP has the power to establish a custom duty, in addition to enforcing it. The ITP answers Internet questions concerning dumping, countervailable subsidies, and how dumping or subsidization is remedied, but the answers are generally nonspecific and never contain any indication of a mathematical import duty level.
I suppose there may be an answer somewhere, but it is well disguised and consistent with my previous opinion that government employees generally do not want to take responsibility for anything. This lets all kinds of things fall through the cracks.
Having seen continuing reports on how the Chinese government operates, I have concluded that the US has no chance in world economics competition, as long as it maintains a wishy-washy attitude of responsibility and a confused bureaucracy.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Time for Action, Not Crying
E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I have read your 9/6/10 Newsletter and found it to be about the same as the previous week, as well as very similar to most of those preceding it.
You have again listed all of the problems created by the present Administration.
I can only again repeat what I have said several times. Respectfully, what are you actually doing about it?
I have read your 9/6/10 Newsletter and found it to be about the same as the previous week, as well as very similar to most of those preceding it.
You have again listed all of the problems created by the present Administration.
I can only again repeat what I have said several times. Respectfully, what are you actually doing about it?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Government Imposed Burden of Dependence
E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
In your latest newsletter, you said, "To get America back on track we must restore our Founders’ principle of empowerment, relying on a more limited government, personal freedom and responsibility and greater choices and opportunity. We need more certainty in the economy and we must prevent tax hikes that will devastate small businesses and working families. It’s time the Administration realizes that the federal government doesn’t create jobs, businesses do. We have to let American companies do what they do best: create jobs and stimulate the economy. It’s time for Americans to take up their own wagons and get this nation on the way to real recovery."
I believe most of us already know all this. In other words, you may be preaching to the converted.
On the other hand, your audience may not be uniform in its ideology. There may be many who like the benefits of handouts from the federal government and paid for by other people. For those, we can quote Pogo who said, "We have met the enemy and they are us".
If your intention, with your above statement, is to start reeducating people against socialistic ideology, your attempts are too feeble. They must be more direct and pragmatic.
For example, the disadvantages of accepting government handouts must be specified. They generally fall into a single category, which is that there is "no free lunch". Every time you accept something from government, you give something in return. The thing you generally give is your independence and right to your own destiny. Government takes that from you piece by piece. This was the land of opportunity. No longer. Government has imposed so many restrictions on what you can do at the present time, that there is little opportunity to do anything except sit tight, receive, and amuse yourself with television or drugs. People need to be informed concerning the fact that this has been happening to them through the years. All government benefits come at a cost. That cost is essentially independence and opportunity.
Many years ago I was a cigarette smoker. I knew I was addicted to nicotine, and I didn't like it. It was controlling my life, and I didn't like giving up that independence. It was for that strong reason that I was able to give up cigarette smoking. I am happy to now be able to have that semblance of independence by being free of a burden. Unfortunately, government has taken much of other facets of my life away, and it continues to get worse. This occurred not because of any direct action on my part, but rather because I wasn't paying attention to an imposition of an outside (government) force. Is it too late for me to do anything about it? Will I be forced to watch television and use drugs, because government has given me no other alternative?
In your latest newsletter, you said, "To get America back on track we must restore our Founders’ principle of empowerment, relying on a more limited government, personal freedom and responsibility and greater choices and opportunity. We need more certainty in the economy and we must prevent tax hikes that will devastate small businesses and working families. It’s time the Administration realizes that the federal government doesn’t create jobs, businesses do. We have to let American companies do what they do best: create jobs and stimulate the economy. It’s time for Americans to take up their own wagons and get this nation on the way to real recovery."
I believe most of us already know all this. In other words, you may be preaching to the converted.
On the other hand, your audience may not be uniform in its ideology. There may be many who like the benefits of handouts from the federal government and paid for by other people. For those, we can quote Pogo who said, "We have met the enemy and they are us".
If your intention, with your above statement, is to start reeducating people against socialistic ideology, your attempts are too feeble. They must be more direct and pragmatic.
For example, the disadvantages of accepting government handouts must be specified. They generally fall into a single category, which is that there is "no free lunch". Every time you accept something from government, you give something in return. The thing you generally give is your independence and right to your own destiny. Government takes that from you piece by piece. This was the land of opportunity. No longer. Government has imposed so many restrictions on what you can do at the present time, that there is little opportunity to do anything except sit tight, receive, and amuse yourself with television or drugs. People need to be informed concerning the fact that this has been happening to them through the years. All government benefits come at a cost. That cost is essentially independence and opportunity.
Many years ago I was a cigarette smoker. I knew I was addicted to nicotine, and I didn't like it. It was controlling my life, and I didn't like giving up that independence. It was for that strong reason that I was able to give up cigarette smoking. I am happy to now be able to have that semblance of independence by being free of a burden. Unfortunately, government has taken much of other facets of my life away, and it continues to get worse. This occurred not because of any direct action on my part, but rather because I wasn't paying attention to an imposition of an outside (government) force. Is it too late for me to do anything about it? Will I be forced to watch television and use drugs, because government has given me no other alternative?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Government's Social Engineering Cost to the Farm Industry & the Public
E-Mail to Congress:
From your previous newsletters, I have concluded that you are a friend of the farmer and agribusiness in general.
I normally don't like to use anecdotal references, when I am trying to make a point. As a scientist, I rather prefer to use statistical data with an assumption that the reader or listener will be able to combine it with his own common sense.
With this present communication, I am making an exception, because the anecdotal reference actually applies to a whole industry, rather than the single business described. The message comes from a friend of mine who has been in the agribusiness for many years. In his operation, he supplies a tangible product to the public and employs a number of people in so doing. This is in contrast to most federal jobs, which provide nothing tangible but rather involve restrictions on improving a tangible way of life for most Americans.
This is what my friend has to say:
"I am in an interesting situation that I thought you might find may be a tool for the dismantling of some of the ridiculous tax subsidies and abatements used by the government for social engineering.
In 2008, my Company sold corn to an ethanol plant. (Verisun) At the end of the contract period they for filed bankruptcy. I got a letter the other day asking for the return of $1.1 M that they paid my company for corn. The payments were made within 90 days of their filing. Of course we will fight it in both Federal court (Bankruptcy – Maryland) and in Michigan court.
The issue is that the ethanol companies still receive a subsidy by the use of the Blending payment of $.50 / gallon. Also in the State of Michigan the ethanol plants do not pay property taxes which are used to educate our children. Because of the subsidies and grants thrown at these facilities, business men expanded faster than the industry could afford and became part of the economic bubble fueled by the housing debacle. As you know, the housing debacle was caused by subsidizing the mortgage business and spurred on by risky lending practices through government guarantee of the housing debt. In turn, the undercapitalized expansion of the ethanol business led to ethanol plants being faced with covering margin calls on an inflated commodity market fueled largely by hedge funds owned by banks and insurance companies. Those banks and insurance companies were later bailed out by TARP monies provided by the feds.
What is left is thousands of farmers and agribusiness men, who are asked to donate once again for government subsidies and social planning gone haywire. It should be noted that our business has never been given a tax subsidy or abatement. We have grown and survived by using good business sense and hard work. We are the ones expected to pay off the 13T debt.
Our government is out of control and over its head in both debt and management skills. Government officials need to be punished for their part in destroying the foundation of our economic success. There are unforeseen costs when social engineering fails. When a bleeding heart takes from one and gives to another, there is no way a government can measure the cost to all parties. That’s why free markets must be able to work. Without them there is no creation of incentive to create.
Art: you are a far clearer voice than I am. This story and the many like it need to be told to Congress and the people."
Randy, I hope you will take this to heart as the "will of the people" and do your duty as a Representative to bring the "will of the people" into government.
From your previous newsletters, I have concluded that you are a friend of the farmer and agribusiness in general.
I normally don't like to use anecdotal references, when I am trying to make a point. As a scientist, I rather prefer to use statistical data with an assumption that the reader or listener will be able to combine it with his own common sense.
With this present communication, I am making an exception, because the anecdotal reference actually applies to a whole industry, rather than the single business described. The message comes from a friend of mine who has been in the agribusiness for many years. In his operation, he supplies a tangible product to the public and employs a number of people in so doing. This is in contrast to most federal jobs, which provide nothing tangible but rather involve restrictions on improving a tangible way of life for most Americans.
This is what my friend has to say:
"I am in an interesting situation that I thought you might find may be a tool for the dismantling of some of the ridiculous tax subsidies and abatements used by the government for social engineering.
In 2008, my Company sold corn to an ethanol plant. (Verisun) At the end of the contract period they for filed bankruptcy. I got a letter the other day asking for the return of $1.1 M that they paid my company for corn. The payments were made within 90 days of their filing. Of course we will fight it in both Federal court (Bankruptcy – Maryland) and in Michigan court.
The issue is that the ethanol companies still receive a subsidy by the use of the Blending payment of $.50 / gallon. Also in the State of Michigan the ethanol plants do not pay property taxes which are used to educate our children. Because of the subsidies and grants thrown at these facilities, business men expanded faster than the industry could afford and became part of the economic bubble fueled by the housing debacle. As you know, the housing debacle was caused by subsidizing the mortgage business and spurred on by risky lending practices through government guarantee of the housing debt. In turn, the undercapitalized expansion of the ethanol business led to ethanol plants being faced with covering margin calls on an inflated commodity market fueled largely by hedge funds owned by banks and insurance companies. Those banks and insurance companies were later bailed out by TARP monies provided by the feds.
What is left is thousands of farmers and agribusiness men, who are asked to donate once again for government subsidies and social planning gone haywire. It should be noted that our business has never been given a tax subsidy or abatement. We have grown and survived by using good business sense and hard work. We are the ones expected to pay off the 13T debt.
Our government is out of control and over its head in both debt and management skills. Government officials need to be punished for their part in destroying the foundation of our economic success. There are unforeseen costs when social engineering fails. When a bleeding heart takes from one and gives to another, there is no way a government can measure the cost to all parties. That’s why free markets must be able to work. Without them there is no creation of incentive to create.
Art: you are a far clearer voice than I am. This story and the many like it need to be told to Congress and the people."
Randy, I hope you will take this to heart as the "will of the people" and do your duty as a Representative to bring the "will of the people" into government.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
US State Department Giving Away Natural Gas Technology
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Shale Gas Has Transformed World Markets, U.S. State Department Says. As production of natural gas from shales spreads across the globe, the U.S. State Department's Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, David Goldwyn, said gas will become as cheap as coal and begin providing base-load generation possibilities for millions of people without electricity. (platts.com)".
I noted from the above that David Goldwyn was taking an unusually positive attitude on a development which government and environmentalists would normally tend to denigrate. The environmentalists would start to campaign against the project because of possible drinking water contamination in the rock fracturing for natural gas production. The Federal Government would start to worry about the cost of carbon dioxide contamination in the atmosphere and leakage of natural gas, which they have already classified as a global warming agent.
This led me to investigate further the more complete EIN News story. David Goldwyn suggested that the US could become again a supplier of liquefied natural gas to world markets. What a wonderful opportunity for the US, which has been consistently losing exports, while imports have been rising substantially for many years!
I was about to applaud David Goldwyn, when I came across another very significant point. The State Department apparently has a socialistic global policy of supplying energy to millions of people without electricity. There is little wrong with that on the surface, but the question is whether we sell the product or give it away. It turns out that the State Department program is to "give it away" by an indirect process of aiding foreign countries to produce their own. Two countries, China and India, have signed agreements allowing US Geological Services to evaluate their potential shale plays to determine if their rock formations have recoverable gas. In addition to signing the agreements, the US Geological Service will loan geologists to help in the development of that foreign production.
Does this make sense to you? We live in a competitive world. We also have a certain amount of compassion for the underprivileged, but the real world says that if you don't take care of yourself first, you will have no opportunity to help others.
China and India have for many years been accumulating US dollars through supplying manufactured goods to the US. Isn't it about time that we retrieved some of those US dollars by selling them natural gas, rather than giving them the technology to produce their own?
EIN News says, "U.S. Shale Gas Has Transformed World Markets, U.S. State Department Says. As production of natural gas from shales spreads across the globe, the U.S. State Department's Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, David Goldwyn, said gas will become as cheap as coal and begin providing base-load generation possibilities for millions of people without electricity. (platts.com)".
I noted from the above that David Goldwyn was taking an unusually positive attitude on a development which government and environmentalists would normally tend to denigrate. The environmentalists would start to campaign against the project because of possible drinking water contamination in the rock fracturing for natural gas production. The Federal Government would start to worry about the cost of carbon dioxide contamination in the atmosphere and leakage of natural gas, which they have already classified as a global warming agent.
This led me to investigate further the more complete EIN News story. David Goldwyn suggested that the US could become again a supplier of liquefied natural gas to world markets. What a wonderful opportunity for the US, which has been consistently losing exports, while imports have been rising substantially for many years!
I was about to applaud David Goldwyn, when I came across another very significant point. The State Department apparently has a socialistic global policy of supplying energy to millions of people without electricity. There is little wrong with that on the surface, but the question is whether we sell the product or give it away. It turns out that the State Department program is to "give it away" by an indirect process of aiding foreign countries to produce their own. Two countries, China and India, have signed agreements allowing US Geological Services to evaluate their potential shale plays to determine if their rock formations have recoverable gas. In addition to signing the agreements, the US Geological Service will loan geologists to help in the development of that foreign production.
Does this make sense to you? We live in a competitive world. We also have a certain amount of compassion for the underprivileged, but the real world says that if you don't take care of yourself first, you will have no opportunity to help others.
China and India have for many years been accumulating US dollars through supplying manufactured goods to the US. Isn't it about time that we retrieved some of those US dollars by selling them natural gas, rather than giving them the technology to produce their own?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Congress Needs to Act
I've just received a newsletter from my Congressman, in which he recounts all of the things that the present Federal Administration is doing wrong with respect to the economy, jobs and other areas.
I have replied to him as follows:
"I just read your newsletter concerning the miserable job the Federal Administration is doing on the economy and about anything else it touches.
Pardon my bluntness, but we already know all this. It's obvious from news we receive on unemployment data and the downward trend of the stock market resulting from the socialism that the Federal Administration has injected into the society.
What do you expect the public, and specifically me, to do about it? I have been bitching about it plenty, in an effort to try to affect the oncoming election to throw these buzzards out. Perhaps that is also your intention in your newsletter.
However, as a Congressman with some semblance of power remaining, I believe you are in a much better position to do something about it now. Start talking to your Democratic associates in the House and the Senate to find some way to hamstring Obama and his henchmen before the elections."
I have replied to him as follows:
"I just read your newsletter concerning the miserable job the Federal Administration is doing on the economy and about anything else it touches.
Pardon my bluntness, but we already know all this. It's obvious from news we receive on unemployment data and the downward trend of the stock market resulting from the socialism that the Federal Administration has injected into the society.
What do you expect the public, and specifically me, to do about it? I have been bitching about it plenty, in an effort to try to affect the oncoming election to throw these buzzards out. Perhaps that is also your intention in your newsletter.
However, as a Congressman with some semblance of power remaining, I believe you are in a much better position to do something about it now. Start talking to your Democratic associates in the House and the Senate to find some way to hamstring Obama and his henchmen before the elections."
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Muslim Deaths at 9/11 Are a Ridiculous Reason to Establish a Memorial Mosque At the Site
E-Mail to Congress:
Another issue has arisen concerning the memorial mosque at the New York City 9/11 site. It is said that Muslims died in the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and that justifies establishing a Muslim memorial mosque at the site.
This is a ridiculous assertion, which could only be dreamed up by unrealistic do-gooders or actual enemies of our society.
The Muslims who flew the planes and died in the destruction did so on the basis of sacrificing their lives for the Muslim God Allah and thereby becoming martyrs. Do we want to allow the raising of a memorial mosque at the site for these people?
A second group of Muslims were probably an insignificantly small group that happened to be employed in the World Trade Center and lost their lives in the attack. We routinely call this collateral damage. We also do not know the political/religious leanings of each of these people. Some may actually have had the same justification as those who flew the planes and were happy to give up their lives as martyrs. Some may be said to have been innocent victims, but as I have said many times, in war there are no innocent victims. Noncombatants are either for or against the operation. If they have done nothing to forestall it initially, they must be considered enemies. In World War II, we killed many thousands of German and Japanese citizens. They were not innocent civilians. They were supporters of the programs of dictator Hitler and the Japanese Emperor.
Those Muslims who died in the World Trade attack were either directly involved or indirectly supported the operation by having done nothing to forestall it initially. Using this same logic, do-gooders who support a mosque at the New York City 9/11 site are as much enemies of our society as those Muslims who support various programs to destroy US economical, political, and religious culture.
Another issue has arisen concerning the memorial mosque at the New York City 9/11 site. It is said that Muslims died in the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and that justifies establishing a Muslim memorial mosque at the site.
This is a ridiculous assertion, which could only be dreamed up by unrealistic do-gooders or actual enemies of our society.
The Muslims who flew the planes and died in the destruction did so on the basis of sacrificing their lives for the Muslim God Allah and thereby becoming martyrs. Do we want to allow the raising of a memorial mosque at the site for these people?
A second group of Muslims were probably an insignificantly small group that happened to be employed in the World Trade Center and lost their lives in the attack. We routinely call this collateral damage. We also do not know the political/religious leanings of each of these people. Some may actually have had the same justification as those who flew the planes and were happy to give up their lives as martyrs. Some may be said to have been innocent victims, but as I have said many times, in war there are no innocent victims. Noncombatants are either for or against the operation. If they have done nothing to forestall it initially, they must be considered enemies. In World War II, we killed many thousands of German and Japanese citizens. They were not innocent civilians. They were supporters of the programs of dictator Hitler and the Japanese Emperor.
Those Muslims who died in the World Trade attack were either directly involved or indirectly supported the operation by having done nothing to forestall it initially. Using this same logic, do-gooders who support a mosque at the New York City 9/11 site are as much enemies of our society as those Muslims who support various programs to destroy US economical, political, and religious culture.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
New York City Mosque
E-Mail to Congress:
Two related issues have been raised in the last several days concerning the proposed New York City mosque. Isn't it a New York City problem, which New Yorkers should decide? What about freedom of religion?
When Muslim terrorists destroyed the New York City World Trade Center, they were not particularly antagonistic against New Yorkers or the Trade Center. Muslim terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center as a symbol of their antagonism against the US. They said so. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to begin World War II, we did not regard it as a Pearl Harbor problem. It was a US problem, and the World Trade Center attack by Muslim terrorists is no less a US problem.
With respect to "freedom of religion", the First Amendment to the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [etc. on speech, press, assembly, and petition]. To my knowledge, Congress has made no such law. In spite of this, the Federal Administration has for many years maintained a program of reducing within the citizenry a respect for and involvement in religion. This is within the Administration's bounds, because there is no law prohibiting this action and conversion of the citizenry to dependency on government, rather than religion, boosts the power of government. More recently, we have added a Muslim inclined President, who whenever possible promotes Islam. A recent example of this has been the Imam traveling to the Middle East under the auspices of the State Department. However, this is fundamentally different problem. The claimed issue is whether we should support building of the Muslim Mosque based on "freedom of religion". Considering the above First Amendment quote that freedom of religion is not involved in this situation. It cannot be used as an excuse to foster building the mosque.
The actual facts on the religious aspect is that Pres. Obama continues to encourage the development of Islam in the US for religious and ideological reasons. He obtains considerable Democratic support, because Democrats believe that the more powerful Muslims we have in our society, the more Democratic votes there will be to maintain Democratic power.
Two related issues have been raised in the last several days concerning the proposed New York City mosque. Isn't it a New York City problem, which New Yorkers should decide? What about freedom of religion?
When Muslim terrorists destroyed the New York City World Trade Center, they were not particularly antagonistic against New Yorkers or the Trade Center. Muslim terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center as a symbol of their antagonism against the US. They said so. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to begin World War II, we did not regard it as a Pearl Harbor problem. It was a US problem, and the World Trade Center attack by Muslim terrorists is no less a US problem.
With respect to "freedom of religion", the First Amendment to the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [etc. on speech, press, assembly, and petition]. To my knowledge, Congress has made no such law. In spite of this, the Federal Administration has for many years maintained a program of reducing within the citizenry a respect for and involvement in religion. This is within the Administration's bounds, because there is no law prohibiting this action and conversion of the citizenry to dependency on government, rather than religion, boosts the power of government. More recently, we have added a Muslim inclined President, who whenever possible promotes Islam. A recent example of this has been the Imam traveling to the Middle East under the auspices of the State Department. However, this is fundamentally different problem. The claimed issue is whether we should support building of the Muslim Mosque based on "freedom of religion". Considering the above First Amendment quote that freedom of religion is not involved in this situation. It cannot be used as an excuse to foster building the mosque.
The actual facts on the religious aspect is that Pres. Obama continues to encourage the development of Islam in the US for religious and ideological reasons. He obtains considerable Democratic support, because Democrats believe that the more powerful Muslims we have in our society, the more Democratic votes there will be to maintain Democratic power.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Combat position on Iraq
E-mail sent to representative Neugebauer:
I read your latest newsletter. I'm sorry to say it's completely wrong. You need to reevaluate your position after you think a bit about the human characteristics of people in general and our responsibility to others.
We have been in Iraq for many years, during which time we have accomplished very little. The basis of the difficulty is that we started on a program of nation building and physically overthrew Saddam Hussein. We may have thought that would be helpful to the Iraqi people at the time, and we then had the resources to do it. The situation has changed. In the subsequent years, we have learned that the Iraqi people do not want our help, unless it's to receive free goodies, much like the US Democrats appeal to ignorant voters. In both cases, the character of the people is destroyed. In addition, ridiculous government spending at home has put us in a quasi-bankrupt position, and unless we make some basic, quick changes, we will completely destroy our power to lead and economically benefit our own citizens. This is much the same as the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and even more recently the British Empire.
Some fast answers are: Only the Iraqi people can take the action necessary to stop the internal slaughter of their own people. Groups naturally fight each other for power, but they will likely eventually come to realize that their own deaths and deaths of their family members are too great a price to pay.
We cannot afford to continue maintenance of 50,000 troops in Iraq, whether in combat or advisory roles. You know the old saying, "put your money where your mouth is". If the Iraqis want our help, they will pay for it. If the do not want to pay, they will be saying they don't need us, and we should go home.
A political motivation on the part of the US Government for the invasion of Iraq was to convert one country, in the center of the Arab world, to a Democracy, which would then spread to its neighbor. We see now that this was a futile dream, in the same vein as reestablishing Camelot. The Arab world has a well-established political and cultural system. You may not like it, but we have no right to force them to change. Do you want to ban the Italians from speaking their language. If so, what about diversity? Do you want everyone to march to the same beat of the drummer? Doesn't this sound like Socialism, which we know always fails?
Some have said we need a military presence in the Middle East to protect ourselves from terrorists, who are being trained there. Hog wash! We are talking about small groups of insurgent types. We have them in the US and probably in the same number. These people are controlled here by local, state, and federal law enforcement. The same can take place abroad. If foreign governments appear uncooperative, for whatever reason, we can try to convince them through the use of national sanctions, and I do not mean involving the UN. As a final measure, we can control terrorist training camps through surgical military strikes using guided missiles or oven old fashioned plane bombing. Remember that in WW II, Allied planes wiped out Germanys' complete industrial complex.
I think I've covered the major points, but feel free to ask about anything I have missed. Get our military out of Iraq, unless the Iraqi's want to pay for its presence. Collect information concerning terrorists against the US by use of on-the ground CIA operatives (spies) and use military strikes against training camps and headquarters as appropriate. Let Iraqis and others take care of their own terrorists. Leave the Arabs and any other world segment to their own devices, unless they are an obvious threat to US life and limb, or economic security. We actually have more to worry about from our own government on the last point.
Oh! And one more. It should not be our goal to have the world population like us. What we want is respect for our national example and the good leadership we show. My best teachers were not people that I liked. I respected them and now appreciate what they did for me through the examples they set. Not because we had silly fun together. Also forget the "world order", equalization of world income, and Obama's dream of being World Emperor.
I read your latest newsletter. I'm sorry to say it's completely wrong. You need to reevaluate your position after you think a bit about the human characteristics of people in general and our responsibility to others.
We have been in Iraq for many years, during which time we have accomplished very little. The basis of the difficulty is that we started on a program of nation building and physically overthrew Saddam Hussein. We may have thought that would be helpful to the Iraqi people at the time, and we then had the resources to do it. The situation has changed. In the subsequent years, we have learned that the Iraqi people do not want our help, unless it's to receive free goodies, much like the US Democrats appeal to ignorant voters. In both cases, the character of the people is destroyed. In addition, ridiculous government spending at home has put us in a quasi-bankrupt position, and unless we make some basic, quick changes, we will completely destroy our power to lead and economically benefit our own citizens. This is much the same as the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and even more recently the British Empire.
Some fast answers are: Only the Iraqi people can take the action necessary to stop the internal slaughter of their own people. Groups naturally fight each other for power, but they will likely eventually come to realize that their own deaths and deaths of their family members are too great a price to pay.
We cannot afford to continue maintenance of 50,000 troops in Iraq, whether in combat or advisory roles. You know the old saying, "put your money where your mouth is". If the Iraqis want our help, they will pay for it. If the do not want to pay, they will be saying they don't need us, and we should go home.
A political motivation on the part of the US Government for the invasion of Iraq was to convert one country, in the center of the Arab world, to a Democracy, which would then spread to its neighbor. We see now that this was a futile dream, in the same vein as reestablishing Camelot. The Arab world has a well-established political and cultural system. You may not like it, but we have no right to force them to change. Do you want to ban the Italians from speaking their language. If so, what about diversity? Do you want everyone to march to the same beat of the drummer? Doesn't this sound like Socialism, which we know always fails?
Some have said we need a military presence in the Middle East to protect ourselves from terrorists, who are being trained there. Hog wash! We are talking about small groups of insurgent types. We have them in the US and probably in the same number. These people are controlled here by local, state, and federal law enforcement. The same can take place abroad. If foreign governments appear uncooperative, for whatever reason, we can try to convince them through the use of national sanctions, and I do not mean involving the UN. As a final measure, we can control terrorist training camps through surgical military strikes using guided missiles or oven old fashioned plane bombing. Remember that in WW II, Allied planes wiped out Germanys' complete industrial complex.
I think I've covered the major points, but feel free to ask about anything I have missed. Get our military out of Iraq, unless the Iraqi's want to pay for its presence. Collect information concerning terrorists against the US by use of on-the ground CIA operatives (spies) and use military strikes against training camps and headquarters as appropriate. Let Iraqis and others take care of their own terrorists. Leave the Arabs and any other world segment to their own devices, unless they are an obvious threat to US life and limb, or economic security. We actually have more to worry about from our own government on the last point.
Oh! And one more. It should not be our goal to have the world population like us. What we want is respect for our national example and the good leadership we show. My best teachers were not people that I liked. I respected them and now appreciate what they did for me through the examples they set. Not because we had silly fun together. Also forget the "world order", equalization of world income, and Obama's dream of being World Emperor.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
A 9 /11 Site Mosque Makes Sense to a Devoted Muslim (Obama) and a Mercenary (Bloomberg).
E-Mail to Congress:
The people who blew up the World Trade Center claimed to do so in the name of their Muslim God. I have not heard any Muslim dispute this.
Therefore, we are engaged in a Religious war, in the same amnner that we were engaged in a National war after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Would it have made sense to put up a monument to the Japanese Emperor at Pearl Harbor?
It would have made sense only to a an idealistic Japanese National.
With respect to the NYC Mosque, it only makes sense to a devoted Muslim (Obama) or a mercenary (Bernstein)
The people who blew up the World Trade Center claimed to do so in the name of their Muslim God. I have not heard any Muslim dispute this.
Therefore, we are engaged in a Religious war, in the same amnner that we were engaged in a National war after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Would it have made sense to put up a monument to the Japanese Emperor at Pearl Harbor?
It would have made sense only to a an idealistic Japanese National.
With respect to the NYC Mosque, it only makes sense to a devoted Muslim (Obama) or a mercenary (Bernstein)
Friday, August 13, 2010
Iraqi Military Support
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Iraqi Army Not Ready to Take Over Until 2020, Says Country's Top General. The Iraqi army is not ready to take over responsibility from the Americans, its most senior general has warned, as the White House insists the U.S. army is on course to end its combat role in the country by the end of this month. (guardian.co.uk)".
Tell him he has two choices. He can get ready, or he can buy military support from us through payments with oil. He should've been paying for this for the last several years. The fact that he has not paid has caused part of the problem of potential bankruptcy for the US.
Marshall did a good job after World War II with his innovative plan to renovate Germany and Japan. However, that plan has subsequently been abused. We need to return to the hundreds of years old practice of "to the victor, belong the spoils".
EIN News says, "Iraqi Army Not Ready to Take Over Until 2020, Says Country's Top General. The Iraqi army is not ready to take over responsibility from the Americans, its most senior general has warned, as the White House insists the U.S. army is on course to end its combat role in the country by the end of this month. (guardian.co.uk)".
Tell him he has two choices. He can get ready, or he can buy military support from us through payments with oil. He should've been paying for this for the last several years. The fact that he has not paid has caused part of the problem of potential bankruptcy for the US.
Marshall did a good job after World War II with his innovative plan to renovate Germany and Japan. However, that plan has subsequently been abused. We need to return to the hundreds of years old practice of "to the victor, belong the spoils".
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Muslim Imam Goes to Middle East at US Taxpayer Expense
E-Mail to Congress:
Fox News reported this morning that the Muslim Imam involved in the building of the mosque at the 9/11 Site in New York City is traveling to the Middle East at US taxpayer expense.
The First Amendment to the Constitution involves only limitations on Congress with respect to religion. However US culture has established through numerous complaints an acceptance that government should not be involved in the promotion of religion. Government has taken this one step further and has taken many actions to eliminate all aspects of religion, particularly Christianity.
If the federal government bears expense of sending a Moslem Imam to the Middle East, whether for fund solicitation or religious cultural practice, it is completely contrary to other government religious directives, such as not praying in schools.
What do you plan to do about it?
Fox News reported this morning that the Muslim Imam involved in the building of the mosque at the 9/11 Site in New York City is traveling to the Middle East at US taxpayer expense.
The First Amendment to the Constitution involves only limitations on Congress with respect to religion. However US culture has established through numerous complaints an acceptance that government should not be involved in the promotion of religion. Government has taken this one step further and has taken many actions to eliminate all aspects of religion, particularly Christianity.
If the federal government bears expense of sending a Moslem Imam to the Middle East, whether for fund solicitation or religious cultural practice, it is completely contrary to other government religious directives, such as not praying in schools.
What do you plan to do about it?
Monday, August 9, 2010
Congress Should Not Be Distracted from Combating Socialistic Administration
E-Mail the Congress:
EIN News says, "As Spill Recedes, Probes Advance. The months-long saga of BP PLC's leaking well might be nearly over, but the investigations have only begun. (wsj.com)".
I hope that Congress does not get involved in this "who killed Cock Robin". We already know about BP's and it's subcontractors' errors. The Obama Administration must follow up to see the BP pays the bill. A small Congressional Committee can follow this from a distance to see that the Administration is doing its job. That same Committee can be looking at who was responsible within the Obama Administration to allow any unusual risks in the drilling operations. Subsequent resignation of those responsible is necessary, but this should not be necessary for Congress as a whole to follow.
Congress needs to not be sidetracked with such details, but needs to keep its eye on restricting and turning back the socialistic proclamations of the Obama administration.
EIN News says, "As Spill Recedes, Probes Advance. The months-long saga of BP PLC's leaking well might be nearly over, but the investigations have only begun. (wsj.com)".
I hope that Congress does not get involved in this "who killed Cock Robin". We already know about BP's and it's subcontractors' errors. The Obama Administration must follow up to see the BP pays the bill. A small Congressional Committee can follow this from a distance to see that the Administration is doing its job. That same Committee can be looking at who was responsible within the Obama Administration to allow any unusual risks in the drilling operations. Subsequent resignation of those responsible is necessary, but this should not be necessary for Congress as a whole to follow.
Congress needs to not be sidetracked with such details, but needs to keep its eye on restricting and turning back the socialistic proclamations of the Obama administration.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Banning Nuclear Weapons Is Impossible
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Hiroshima Marks 65th Atomic Bomb Anniversary, Calls for End of Nuke Weapons. Japan's Hiroshima marked the 65th atomic bomb anniversary on Friday for the first time with the presence of the UN chief and U.S. representatives, calling for a world free of nuclear weapons. (xinhuanet.com)".
This is a ridiculous assertion! It would be in the same category as eliminating all lawbreaking or eliminating sex. As long as some people wish to have an advantage over others, they will use whatever weapon they feel is necessary, including nuclear weapons.
The US used the atomic bomb in World War II to protect itself against domination by the Japanese. This was basically a defensive use. However, if the atomic bomb had been in the hands of the Japanese, I believe there would have been little hesitation on their using it to achieve their ends of world domination at that time.
The UN Chief and US Rep. are completely out of step with an understanding of human motivations.
Nuclear weapons are here to stay. Pandora's Box has been opened. There is no way to re-close it.
The US must now be foremost in its ability to produce and use nuclear weapons as may be necessary, and this includes the primary limitation, which will be human judgment. An attitude such as indicated by the U.S. representative above will lead to complete destruction of the United States, as its enemies understand that the US will take no action until it's too late.
The "Mutually Destructive" policy, under which we have been operating for almost 70 years, has been effective but has its limitations. The use of terrorism activities has been a relatively recent activity in war. To counteract this, we need to develop small-scale nuclear weapons, which will give us an option other than mutual destruction. You might even get some Democrats to vote along with you on this development. Even today, I suspect that not all Democrats are pie-in-the-sky. There may still be a few like Roosevelt and Truman, who approved the development of the atomic bomb and its use.
EIN News says, "Hiroshima Marks 65th Atomic Bomb Anniversary, Calls for End of Nuke Weapons. Japan's Hiroshima marked the 65th atomic bomb anniversary on Friday for the first time with the presence of the UN chief and U.S. representatives, calling for a world free of nuclear weapons. (xinhuanet.com)".
This is a ridiculous assertion! It would be in the same category as eliminating all lawbreaking or eliminating sex. As long as some people wish to have an advantage over others, they will use whatever weapon they feel is necessary, including nuclear weapons.
The US used the atomic bomb in World War II to protect itself against domination by the Japanese. This was basically a defensive use. However, if the atomic bomb had been in the hands of the Japanese, I believe there would have been little hesitation on their using it to achieve their ends of world domination at that time.
The UN Chief and US Rep. are completely out of step with an understanding of human motivations.
Nuclear weapons are here to stay. Pandora's Box has been opened. There is no way to re-close it.
The US must now be foremost in its ability to produce and use nuclear weapons as may be necessary, and this includes the primary limitation, which will be human judgment. An attitude such as indicated by the U.S. representative above will lead to complete destruction of the United States, as its enemies understand that the US will take no action until it's too late.
The "Mutually Destructive" policy, under which we have been operating for almost 70 years, has been effective but has its limitations. The use of terrorism activities has been a relatively recent activity in war. To counteract this, we need to develop small-scale nuclear weapons, which will give us an option other than mutual destruction. You might even get some Democrats to vote along with you on this development. Even today, I suspect that not all Democrats are pie-in-the-sky. There may still be a few like Roosevelt and Truman, who approved the development of the atomic bomb and its use.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Big Government Gets More Heavy-Handed
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Other Energy Issues Seep Into Spill Legislation. Energy legislation advancing in the Senate would force companies to reveal closely held details about the chemical cocktails they use to extract natural gas from shale rock, imposing the first federal regulation on hydraulic fracturing. (chron.com)."
This is a sample of what I mean when I talk about hiding sneaky stuff in legislation.
In this case, we're talking about "proprietary know-how". While we have a nice Patent/Trademark law, government and industry have recognized that corporations and private individuals have a right to secrecy in chemical formulations. An example of this recognition is in the Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheets, which are government mandated for all chemical compositions either offered to the public or used in the environment. For the MSDS, it is sufficient to designate a formulation by trademark without indicating specific chemical compositions, providing toxicity and environmental data showing that all constituents are essentially innocuous.
Forcing corporations and individuals to reveal inapplicable details of their "know-how" would be a significant change from current accepted practice and could be considered an infraction on personal rights. Government is not known for its reliability in retaining confidential information belonging to others. In fact, it has difficulty in avoiding leaks of its own information. The fact that the bill specifically requests the composition of hydraulic fracturing material, may also imply that someone in the federal government anticipates being able to obtain the information and subsequently sell it to industry competitors.
For those who may distrust the submitted MSDS toxicity and environmental data, I would like to remind them that we have in these days very effective analytical techniques. If government feels it needs to know an exact chemical composition of a formulation, it always has the option of a laboratory analysis.
This consideration of chemical cocktails in hydraulic fracturing for natural gas is not grossly significant in itself. It is just another step of imposition of big government on the rights of corporations and individuals.
EIN News says, "Other Energy Issues Seep Into Spill Legislation. Energy legislation advancing in the Senate would force companies to reveal closely held details about the chemical cocktails they use to extract natural gas from shale rock, imposing the first federal regulation on hydraulic fracturing. (chron.com)."
This is a sample of what I mean when I talk about hiding sneaky stuff in legislation.
In this case, we're talking about "proprietary know-how". While we have a nice Patent/Trademark law, government and industry have recognized that corporations and private individuals have a right to secrecy in chemical formulations. An example of this recognition is in the Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheets, which are government mandated for all chemical compositions either offered to the public or used in the environment. For the MSDS, it is sufficient to designate a formulation by trademark without indicating specific chemical compositions, providing toxicity and environmental data showing that all constituents are essentially innocuous.
Forcing corporations and individuals to reveal inapplicable details of their "know-how" would be a significant change from current accepted practice and could be considered an infraction on personal rights. Government is not known for its reliability in retaining confidential information belonging to others. In fact, it has difficulty in avoiding leaks of its own information. The fact that the bill specifically requests the composition of hydraulic fracturing material, may also imply that someone in the federal government anticipates being able to obtain the information and subsequently sell it to industry competitors.
For those who may distrust the submitted MSDS toxicity and environmental data, I would like to remind them that we have in these days very effective analytical techniques. If government feels it needs to know an exact chemical composition of a formulation, it always has the option of a laboratory analysis.
This consideration of chemical cocktails in hydraulic fracturing for natural gas is not grossly significant in itself. It is just another step of imposition of big government on the rights of corporations and individuals.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Arizona's Immigration Law
E-Mail to Congress:
This is a U.S. Constitutional approach to Arizona's controversial immigration law. Sections of the U.S. Constitution and an Amendment are quoted. Each quotation is designated by ". Each of my comments is designated by [.
The Constitution of the United States
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
[There are 18 specified powers of Congress, none of which pertain to immigration.]
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
[This implies that in the years 1808 and later, Congress may establish immigration laws. However, it is not among the specifically designated 18 Congressional Powers.]
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
"The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
[Since the Power to control immigration is not among the 18 designated Powers of Congress and is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution, each State may make and enforce its own immigration laws].
If this case comes to the US. Supreme Court and the above arguments are refuted, we should consider another aspect of the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
"He [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [If the Supreme Court declares the U.S. Congress immigration law to be valid, the President can be charged with dereliction of duty in not enforcing Congress' immigration law.]
[A President may be impeached if he commits "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". One definition of "High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.]
In not enforcing Federal Immigration Law, the President can be accused of attempting to alter the outcome of elections.
This is a U.S. Constitutional approach to Arizona's controversial immigration law. Sections of the U.S. Constitution and an Amendment are quoted. Each quotation is designated by ". Each of my comments is designated by [.
The Constitution of the United States
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
[There are 18 specified powers of Congress, none of which pertain to immigration.]
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
[This implies that in the years 1808 and later, Congress may establish immigration laws. However, it is not among the specifically designated 18 Congressional Powers.]
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
"The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
[Since the Power to control immigration is not among the 18 designated Powers of Congress and is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution, each State may make and enforce its own immigration laws].
If this case comes to the US. Supreme Court and the above arguments are refuted, we should consider another aspect of the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
"He [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [If the Supreme Court declares the U.S. Congress immigration law to be valid, the President can be charged with dereliction of duty in not enforcing Congress' immigration law.]
[A President may be impeached if he commits "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". One definition of "High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.]
In not enforcing Federal Immigration Law, the President can be accused of attempting to alter the outcome of elections.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
There Are No Innocent Civilians in War
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. General Petraeus Vows to Protect Afghan Civilians. The new chief of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has vowed to protect Afghan civilians as he has been briefing allies and partners at NATO HQ in Brussels before heading to Kabul. (bbc.co.uk)".
Bad move! The above statement implies that Afghan civilians are innocent civilians. In war, there is no such thing as innocent civilians. Civilians are either for you or against you in favor of the locally established government. For example, there were not a significant number of innocent German civilians, during World War II. The people elected Hitler. They fought for Hitler. They worked in factories to produce war goods for Hitler.
In an environment such as Afghanistan, it is difficult to determine who the civilian enemies are. It should be assumed that every Afghani is an enemy, until he proves otherwise. This does not mean that killing civilians should be a high priority item. The first priority is the killing of Afghanis who are obviously bearing arms against us. Civilians are in the second category, to be later divided into local government supporters or our friends, and then handled accordingly. We learned this in Korea and Vietnam. Do we have to sacrifice more GI's to learn it again?
EIN News says, "U.S. General Petraeus Vows to Protect Afghan Civilians. The new chief of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has vowed to protect Afghan civilians as he has been briefing allies and partners at NATO HQ in Brussels before heading to Kabul. (bbc.co.uk)".
Bad move! The above statement implies that Afghan civilians are innocent civilians. In war, there is no such thing as innocent civilians. Civilians are either for you or against you in favor of the locally established government. For example, there were not a significant number of innocent German civilians, during World War II. The people elected Hitler. They fought for Hitler. They worked in factories to produce war goods for Hitler.
In an environment such as Afghanistan, it is difficult to determine who the civilian enemies are. It should be assumed that every Afghani is an enemy, until he proves otherwise. This does not mean that killing civilians should be a high priority item. The first priority is the killing of Afghanis who are obviously bearing arms against us. Civilians are in the second category, to be later divided into local government supporters or our friends, and then handled accordingly. We learned this in Korea and Vietnam. Do we have to sacrifice more GI's to learn it again?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Obama Administration Threatening BP for Criminal Liability
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Opens Criminal Inquiry Into Oil Spill. The Obama administration said that it had begun civil and criminal investigations into the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, as the deepening crisis threatened to define President Obama's second year in office. (nytimes.com)".
How ridiculous can this Obama Administration be? They need BP's cooperation in capping the oil gusher. Does, threatening someone with dire consequences whether they cooperate or not lead to increased cooperation? Anybody with an ounce of experience in dealing with people including children, very well knows that it does not.
Here is an example. We capture an Al Qaeda operative. We say to him, "Tell us all you know, before we kill you". Do you really think he will spill his guts?
EIN News says, "U.S. Opens Criminal Inquiry Into Oil Spill. The Obama administration said that it had begun civil and criminal investigations into the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, as the deepening crisis threatened to define President Obama's second year in office. (nytimes.com)".
How ridiculous can this Obama Administration be? They need BP's cooperation in capping the oil gusher. Does, threatening someone with dire consequences whether they cooperate or not lead to increased cooperation? Anybody with an ounce of experience in dealing with people including children, very well knows that it does not.
Here is an example. We capture an Al Qaeda operative. We say to him, "Tell us all you know, before we kill you". Do you really think he will spill his guts?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Selling the U.S. to an International Conglomerate
E-Mail to Congress:
The Obama Administration is selling the U.S. to an international conglomerate.
If you don't want to see your country disappear as an independent entity, you may want to do something about it.
I worked 37 years for the Rohm & Haas Company. It was a large Chemical Company, which has now disappeared into Dow.
As the international conglomerate takes over the U.S., the best we could hope for is a subservatory position, such as the States now have in the U.S. hierarchy. We are seeing recently that State power is overshadowed by Federal power, when push comes to shove. The Feds have the power of the purse to print money and dole it out to the States as largess. Those who control the purse strings also control every other aspect of freedom. When the European Union was established as socialistic entity, the first action was to eliminate individual country's currency. and set up an international Euro.
I personally like our country. It's previous record of accomplishments has been unsurpassed by any other country. That record results from a combination of many factors, including primarily the Constitution, which guarantees personal freedoms and economic opportunity. Previous and current Administrations and Congress have been hacking away at the Constitution for so many years so that our present government is hardly recognizable from the original constitutional intent.
It is granted that all things must evolve through time, but there is variability. In a socialistic state, someone who steals from another person is no longer a thief, since all property is government owned. How far can that be extended? Can one person take the life of another? In absolute socialism, persons are also property of the State. Therefore, the concept of murder ceases to exist.
Is it reasonable for us to be traveling down that road? If not, now is the time to put a stop to it. Decrease the power of Federal Government by shrinking its size, which automatically reduces the negative things that a Federal Government can do.
The Obama Administration is selling the U.S. to an international conglomerate.
If you don't want to see your country disappear as an independent entity, you may want to do something about it.
I worked 37 years for the Rohm & Haas Company. It was a large Chemical Company, which has now disappeared into Dow.
As the international conglomerate takes over the U.S., the best we could hope for is a subservatory position, such as the States now have in the U.S. hierarchy. We are seeing recently that State power is overshadowed by Federal power, when push comes to shove. The Feds have the power of the purse to print money and dole it out to the States as largess. Those who control the purse strings also control every other aspect of freedom. When the European Union was established as socialistic entity, the first action was to eliminate individual country's currency. and set up an international Euro.
I personally like our country. It's previous record of accomplishments has been unsurpassed by any other country. That record results from a combination of many factors, including primarily the Constitution, which guarantees personal freedoms and economic opportunity. Previous and current Administrations and Congress have been hacking away at the Constitution for so many years so that our present government is hardly recognizable from the original constitutional intent.
It is granted that all things must evolve through time, but there is variability. In a socialistic state, someone who steals from another person is no longer a thief, since all property is government owned. How far can that be extended? Can one person take the life of another? In absolute socialism, persons are also property of the State. Therefore, the concept of murder ceases to exist.
Is it reasonable for us to be traveling down that road? If not, now is the time to put a stop to it. Decrease the power of Federal Government by shrinking its size, which automatically reduces the negative things that a Federal Government can do.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Socialists Do Not Believe in Private Property Ownership
E-Mail to talk show host Mike McConnell:
I was listening this morning to your explanation of Senator Rand Paul's position on civil rights, for which he has recently been chastised.
You were making the point that there is a difference between private and government establishments. Government has no right to control membership and admission of private clubs or businesses.
During that section, you also had a phone conversation with a socialist caller, which seemed to go nowhere.
I now make a suggestion of the major reason why there is wide divergence of opinion on the part of the public concerning this issue.
SOCIALISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE CONCEPT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. For Socialists which are now generally Democrats, private property does not exist. All property belongs either to the state (socialism) or to the people (communism).
As long as socialist Democrats maintain this position, there is no basis of discussion along the line of differentiating between government controlled and private controlled property. I suggest you should have called the telephone caller a socialist and say also that you don't discuss the misguided merits of socialism at this time.
I was listening this morning to your explanation of Senator Rand Paul's position on civil rights, for which he has recently been chastised.
You were making the point that there is a difference between private and government establishments. Government has no right to control membership and admission of private clubs or businesses.
During that section, you also had a phone conversation with a socialist caller, which seemed to go nowhere.
I now make a suggestion of the major reason why there is wide divergence of opinion on the part of the public concerning this issue.
SOCIALISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE CONCEPT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. For Socialists which are now generally Democrats, private property does not exist. All property belongs either to the state (socialism) or to the people (communism).
As long as socialist Democrats maintain this position, there is no basis of discussion along the line of differentiating between government controlled and private controlled property. I suggest you should have called the telephone caller a socialist and say also that you don't discuss the misguided merits of socialism at this time.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Ethnic Groups Need to Assimilate in America
E-mail to Rep. Randy Neugebauer:
Good job on continuing to save money by shrinking government!
I can understand your catering to unions (teachers) and Hispanics (Cinco de Mayo) as a need to not shuck off votes. However, I think you need to walk a fine line.
The fact is that the Teachers Union already has too much power in minimizing efficient education in our schools and having exorbitant pension benefits.
Hispanics should be considered part of Americans. We don't cater to Italians, Syrians, Bulgarians, British, etc.. They need to assimilate into our society as previous ethnic groups have done. Maintaining ethnic division in the country is bad for its development. When we celebrate ethnic holidays, or even recognize them, we do damage to our society.
Good job on continuing to save money by shrinking government!
I can understand your catering to unions (teachers) and Hispanics (Cinco de Mayo) as a need to not shuck off votes. However, I think you need to walk a fine line.
The fact is that the Teachers Union already has too much power in minimizing efficient education in our schools and having exorbitant pension benefits.
Hispanics should be considered part of Americans. We don't cater to Italians, Syrians, Bulgarians, British, etc.. They need to assimilate into our society as previous ethnic groups have done. Maintaining ethnic division in the country is bad for its development. When we celebrate ethnic holidays, or even recognize them, we do damage to our society.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Congratulations to FTC for Antitrust Enforcement
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "FTC Investigates Oil Firms Over Hiring, Wages. The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether the world's biggest oil companies colluded to suppress managerial, professional and technical employees' wages in ways that violated U.S. antitrust laws, according to people familiar with the matter. (wsj.com)".
This is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of the Federal government. Antitrust. We generally have too many restrictive laws, which lead to poor government control. It is a pleasure to see an almost unique example of government control.
EIN News says, "FTC Investigates Oil Firms Over Hiring, Wages. The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether the world's biggest oil companies colluded to suppress managerial, professional and technical employees' wages in ways that violated U.S. antitrust laws, according to people familiar with the matter. (wsj.com)".
This is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of the Federal government. Antitrust. We generally have too many restrictive laws, which lead to poor government control. It is a pleasure to see an almost unique example of government control.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Congress and School Discipline by Paddling
E-Mail to Congress:
I was just listening to Fox News. Apparently, Congress is considering involving itself in passing a law against school paddling as a form of discipline enforcement in schools.
Congress already has a bad reputation concerning judgment on what matters to be involved in. If they get involved in this one, it would be ridiculous at its utmost. People are already at their wits end concerning government transgressions on citizens liberties. The Federal government has no justification for involvement.
The people locally elected school boards and give them the authority to appoint superintendents and other officials who will decide what forms of discipline are required. If the people don't like what is going on with respect to schools and their children, they can reelect a different school board and appointed officials.
I strongly suggest you and your associates stay out of developing additional restrictive laws concerning school discipline.
I was just listening to Fox News. Apparently, Congress is considering involving itself in passing a law against school paddling as a form of discipline enforcement in schools.
Congress already has a bad reputation concerning judgment on what matters to be involved in. If they get involved in this one, it would be ridiculous at its utmost. People are already at their wits end concerning government transgressions on citizens liberties. The Federal government has no justification for involvement.
The people locally elected school boards and give them the authority to appoint superintendents and other officials who will decide what forms of discipline are required. If the people don't like what is going on with respect to schools and their children, they can reelect a different school board and appointed officials.
I strongly suggest you and your associates stay out of developing additional restrictive laws concerning school discipline.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Iran Asking Why We Have a Military Presence in Iraq and Afghanistan
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Iran Urges UN Inquiry Into Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's president has urged the UN to launch an investigation into the aims of Western military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. (bbc.co.uk)".
Ahmadinejad seems to have a good idea. I too would like to add a clear answer on why we are there.
EIN News says, "Iran Urges UN Inquiry Into Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's president has urged the UN to launch an investigation into the aims of Western military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. (bbc.co.uk)".
Ahmadinejad seems to have a good idea. I too would like to add a clear answer on why we are there.
Increased Fuel Costs Through Higher Taxes
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. to Take Close Look at Royalty Rates. The federal government launched a global review of how much energy companies pay to extract oil and natural gas from public lands in a step that could lead to higher royalties for drilling on U.S. property. (chron.com)".
Here's another tax that will be passed along to the public in the form of higher gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil prices.
Isn't there some way you can stop this and similar deceptive financial maneuvers?
EIN News says, "U.S. to Take Close Look at Royalty Rates. The federal government launched a global review of how much energy companies pay to extract oil and natural gas from public lands in a step that could lead to higher royalties for drilling on U.S. property. (chron.com)".
Here's another tax that will be passed along to the public in the form of higher gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil prices.
Isn't there some way you can stop this and similar deceptive financial maneuvers?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Kyrgyzstan Model for US?
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Kyrgyzstan Capital Bloodied, Looted and Chaotic After Overthrow of Bakiyev. The popular revolt in Kyrgyzstan that toppled Bakiyev two days ago was so sudden and ferocious that nobody has had a chance to give it a name yet. But it would be plausible to dub it the fir tree revolution - after the presidential shrubs taken and loaded into taxis. (guardian.co.uk)".
In some ways, this reminds me of the basis of other revolutions. The French Revolution started with physical violence against the King and his Administration and extended to the beheading of all those living high on the hog and generally referred to as nobility. The various Banana Republic revolutions were again directed against existing self-serving governments, generally by insurgent groups rather than the people as a whole. The American revolution was directed against the Crown by a split populous, again for financial reasons through taxes Are the TEA parties and other rantings against taxes and government control precursors to physical violence? They may be. The American people are human like other people of the world and can be driven just so far against the wall before they emotionally react.
Congress already has a bad reputation with the American people, but it still has the power of government. It can take the people's side against the Obama Administration. The quicker it does so, the less likely that the US will fall into anarchy.
EIN News says, "Kyrgyzstan Capital Bloodied, Looted and Chaotic After Overthrow of Bakiyev. The popular revolt in Kyrgyzstan that toppled Bakiyev two days ago was so sudden and ferocious that nobody has had a chance to give it a name yet. But it would be plausible to dub it the fir tree revolution - after the presidential shrubs taken and loaded into taxis. (guardian.co.uk)".
In some ways, this reminds me of the basis of other revolutions. The French Revolution started with physical violence against the King and his Administration and extended to the beheading of all those living high on the hog and generally referred to as nobility. The various Banana Republic revolutions were again directed against existing self-serving governments, generally by insurgent groups rather than the people as a whole. The American revolution was directed against the Crown by a split populous, again for financial reasons through taxes Are the TEA parties and other rantings against taxes and government control precursors to physical violence? They may be. The American people are human like other people of the world and can be driven just so far against the wall before they emotionally react.
Congress already has a bad reputation with the American people, but it still has the power of government. It can take the people's side against the Obama Administration. The quicker it does so, the less likely that the US will fall into anarchy.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Sec. Napolitano Taking Correct Steps on Immigration Control
E-mail the Congress:
Congratulations to Sec. Napolitano on her new security clearance program for people entering the United States!
Sec. Napolitano has done mostly a miserable job up to now, but we must give credit where credit is due. As Secretary of Homeland Security, her job is to protect physically the people of the United States, including guarding them from terrorists entering from abroad.
The new program will involve initial questioning on race and religion, which seems to have upset a number of people. The record shows that Muslims and nonwhites have the highest prevalence for terrorist activities. Therefore, this is a logical area for questioning. The Secretary has said that people of those two groups will have special concentration on the initial interrogation, and may even go on to a second phase of interrogation, depending upon information collected in the primary instance. The Secretary is not talking about beating these people, torturing them, or jailing them. Some may be considered this profiling, but profiling is the only way progress is made on some problems.
In the 1970s, I was pulled out of line at Hawaii airport screening, for a private disrobing and body search. I was never given a reason for this action by immigration authorities, and I believe I should have had an explanation. However, I was not overly disturbed, and was especially appreciative of the diligence of immigration authorities, when I learned later that I fit the description of a person who was reported to be bringing drugs into the state.
I am on the whole a strong believer in individual freedoms but admit that some license must be taken depending on circumstances. In 1944, I was forced into the United States Army and subsequently required to do my best on uranium separation for an atomic bomb. I had no desire to kill thousands of people, but I did have an understanding that I could shorten casualties of the US military by use of this device. I felt my temporary limitation on individual liberties was justified for the good of the country.
Congratulations to Sec. Napolitano on her new security clearance program for people entering the United States!
Sec. Napolitano has done mostly a miserable job up to now, but we must give credit where credit is due. As Secretary of Homeland Security, her job is to protect physically the people of the United States, including guarding them from terrorists entering from abroad.
The new program will involve initial questioning on race and religion, which seems to have upset a number of people. The record shows that Muslims and nonwhites have the highest prevalence for terrorist activities. Therefore, this is a logical area for questioning. The Secretary has said that people of those two groups will have special concentration on the initial interrogation, and may even go on to a second phase of interrogation, depending upon information collected in the primary instance. The Secretary is not talking about beating these people, torturing them, or jailing them. Some may be considered this profiling, but profiling is the only way progress is made on some problems.
In the 1970s, I was pulled out of line at Hawaii airport screening, for a private disrobing and body search. I was never given a reason for this action by immigration authorities, and I believe I should have had an explanation. However, I was not overly disturbed, and was especially appreciative of the diligence of immigration authorities, when I learned later that I fit the description of a person who was reported to be bringing drugs into the state.
I am on the whole a strong believer in individual freedoms but admit that some license must be taken depending on circumstances. In 1944, I was forced into the United States Army and subsequently required to do my best on uranium separation for an atomic bomb. I had no desire to kill thousands of people, but I did have an understanding that I could shorten casualties of the US military by use of this device. I felt my temporary limitation on individual liberties was justified for the good of the country.
Poppies Are the Basis for Afghan/US Split
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Afghan President Blames Western Officials for Election Fraud. Just days after a visit by President Obama, Hamid Karzai blames foreigners for last year's problems and says they 'do not want us to have a parliamentary election' in September. (latimes.com)".
Here we start to see cracks in the dike caused by increasing political pressure. The fact is that neither the Afghan people nor the Afghan government want us in their country. They know that part of our objective for drug control in the United States is to eliminate drug production at its source. The Afghan income from foreign sources is almost exclusively from poppy related products, in the form of heroin. As poor as these people are, they will be worse off without that income, and they know it is our objective to kill it. They can count on the foreign income from the presence of the US military in the short term, but know but that it is of limited duration. The market for poppy related products will continue indefinitely.
EIN News says, "Afghan President Blames Western Officials for Election Fraud. Just days after a visit by President Obama, Hamid Karzai blames foreigners for last year's problems and says they 'do not want us to have a parliamentary election' in September. (latimes.com)".
Here we start to see cracks in the dike caused by increasing political pressure. The fact is that neither the Afghan people nor the Afghan government want us in their country. They know that part of our objective for drug control in the United States is to eliminate drug production at its source. The Afghan income from foreign sources is almost exclusively from poppy related products, in the form of heroin. As poor as these people are, they will be worse off without that income, and they know it is our objective to kill it. They can count on the foreign income from the presence of the US military in the short term, but know but that it is of limited duration. The market for poppy related products will continue indefinitely.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Basis of the Afghanistan War
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Aid Going to Afghanistan Partners. The Pentagon is pouring millions of dollars into equipment and training for its smaller partner nations in the Afghanistan war, a new effort that could encourage some countries not to abandon the increasingly unpopular conflict. (seattlepi.com)".
This is what happens when you have a dirty job and you don't want to do it yourself. You hire somebody else to do it, if you have the money. The US doesn't have the money. We are deeply in debt and continue to increase our debt through budget deficit financing.
Let's consider again why we are in this Afghanistan war. We say we are not nation building. Fine, we will take it that. We also say we are protecting ourselves from terrorists by moving the operation abroad rather than trying to control them in the US. While that sounds good on the surface, it is not necessary to have ground forces to do that job. Through a combination of intelligence and technical observations from satellites and other means, we can easily pick out training camps or the physical locations of other operations detrimental to the US, and bomb the hell out of them. That's why we have an air force. If we can't do this with conventional explosives, let's develop a nice compact atomic bomb that will do the job. We need to forget the reticence to use atomic explosives, because of promises to other countries that we would not do so. Subsequent developments of atomic explosives in many countries of the world have made this promise obsolete. We need to maintain superiority in atomic weaponry. One of the best ways to do this is to establish small atomic weapons to do specific jobs without too much ancillary killing of citizenry.
If one wants to deceive himself into thinking that our military presence in Afghanistan is favorable to the Afghanistan people, we need to think again. Perhaps we think we are protecting the Afghanistan people from the Taliban. It should not be our business to do that, if the people want the Taliban. Consider also that Afghanistan is a great area for production of poppies, leading to heroin, which has great acceptance on the world market. This is a substantial portion of the Afghanistan GDP, and it is well known that the US desires to wipe it out. If you were an Afghanistan citizen, would you welcome a foreign military operation, whose intention is to reduce your standard a living from an already poor state? If we are there to eliminate poppy production, let's be clear about it and maximize our use of herbicides to do so. We are likely in this operation to reap the wrath of the Afghanistan people, but so be it.
I have mixed feelings on drug use. There will always be individuals who will choose that route, but most will not. The Dutch program works on that basis. It is not possible to stamp out drug use, but it is also not desirable to promote it. A Mexican official has said that it is not Mexico's fault that the US desires marijuana. If the market were not there, there would be no need to produce it. I believe our government should spend considerably less time and money on controlling the influx of drugs and also on rehabilitation of drug addicts. Most addicts are there because they took a risk and failed. It is not the responsibility of the remaining public to bail them out of their situation. As unemployment remains high, there will likely be a greater increase in drug addiction, because these people have nothing else to do. Whether we support them as unemployed or as drug addicts makes little difference economically. In either case, they are nonproductive.
EIN News says, "U.S. Aid Going to Afghanistan Partners. The Pentagon is pouring millions of dollars into equipment and training for its smaller partner nations in the Afghanistan war, a new effort that could encourage some countries not to abandon the increasingly unpopular conflict. (seattlepi.com)".
This is what happens when you have a dirty job and you don't want to do it yourself. You hire somebody else to do it, if you have the money. The US doesn't have the money. We are deeply in debt and continue to increase our debt through budget deficit financing.
Let's consider again why we are in this Afghanistan war. We say we are not nation building. Fine, we will take it that. We also say we are protecting ourselves from terrorists by moving the operation abroad rather than trying to control them in the US. While that sounds good on the surface, it is not necessary to have ground forces to do that job. Through a combination of intelligence and technical observations from satellites and other means, we can easily pick out training camps or the physical locations of other operations detrimental to the US, and bomb the hell out of them. That's why we have an air force. If we can't do this with conventional explosives, let's develop a nice compact atomic bomb that will do the job. We need to forget the reticence to use atomic explosives, because of promises to other countries that we would not do so. Subsequent developments of atomic explosives in many countries of the world have made this promise obsolete. We need to maintain superiority in atomic weaponry. One of the best ways to do this is to establish small atomic weapons to do specific jobs without too much ancillary killing of citizenry.
If one wants to deceive himself into thinking that our military presence in Afghanistan is favorable to the Afghanistan people, we need to think again. Perhaps we think we are protecting the Afghanistan people from the Taliban. It should not be our business to do that, if the people want the Taliban. Consider also that Afghanistan is a great area for production of poppies, leading to heroin, which has great acceptance on the world market. This is a substantial portion of the Afghanistan GDP, and it is well known that the US desires to wipe it out. If you were an Afghanistan citizen, would you welcome a foreign military operation, whose intention is to reduce your standard a living from an already poor state? If we are there to eliminate poppy production, let's be clear about it and maximize our use of herbicides to do so. We are likely in this operation to reap the wrath of the Afghanistan people, but so be it.
I have mixed feelings on drug use. There will always be individuals who will choose that route, but most will not. The Dutch program works on that basis. It is not possible to stamp out drug use, but it is also not desirable to promote it. A Mexican official has said that it is not Mexico's fault that the US desires marijuana. If the market were not there, there would be no need to produce it. I believe our government should spend considerably less time and money on controlling the influx of drugs and also on rehabilitation of drug addicts. Most addicts are there because they took a risk and failed. It is not the responsibility of the remaining public to bail them out of their situation. As unemployment remains high, there will likely be a greater increase in drug addiction, because these people have nothing else to do. Whether we support them as unemployed or as drug addicts makes little difference economically. In either case, they are nonproductive.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Using Nazi Identification Techniques in the US
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Immigration Overhaul Calls for Capturing Biometric Data of All US Citizens. March 19, 2010 /EIN PRESSWIRE/ Part of the overhaul of US immigration policy would call for new Social Security cards that would include biometric information of all citizens."
This is a silly proposal. The Germans developed a much better identification technique in the '30s. They tattooed numbers on the backs of the hands of Jews. This has the advantage of quick identification. Not necessary to fool around looking for a card, which you may not have with you or which actually may be someone else's or a phony.
True. The Nazi's identified the Jews before tattooing. The present "immigration overall" proposal suggests that everyone have the card. The actual sorting can be done later.
Wikipedia defines biometrics as follows: "Biometrics comprises methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. In computer science, in particular, biometrics is used as a form of identity access management and access control. It is also used to identify individuals in groups that are under surveillance."
Note the part about identifying individuals, who are parts of groups under surveillance. Democrats in power could then easily round up all identified Republicans and parade them to the gas chamber.
EIN News says, "Immigration Overhaul Calls for Capturing Biometric Data of All US Citizens. March 19, 2010 /EIN PRESSWIRE/ Part of the overhaul of US immigration policy would call for new Social Security cards that would include biometric information of all citizens."
This is a silly proposal. The Germans developed a much better identification technique in the '30s. They tattooed numbers on the backs of the hands of Jews. This has the advantage of quick identification. Not necessary to fool around looking for a card, which you may not have with you or which actually may be someone else's or a phony.
True. The Nazi's identified the Jews before tattooing. The present "immigration overall" proposal suggests that everyone have the card. The actual sorting can be done later.
Wikipedia defines biometrics as follows: "Biometrics comprises methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. In computer science, in particular, biometrics is used as a form of identity access management and access control. It is also used to identify individuals in groups that are under surveillance."
Note the part about identifying individuals, who are parts of groups under surveillance. Democrats in power could then easily round up all identified Republicans and parade them to the gas chamber.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Jewish Support Goes under the Bus
E-mail the Congress:
EIN News says, "White House Goes on the Offensive Against Netanyahu. Israel's government was yesterday facing the worst chill in relations with the U.S. since taking office after a top White House official said the announcement of plans to expand an East Jerusalem settlement seemed "calculated to undermine" the negotiating process. (independent.co.uk)".
This is a very interesting development.
US Jews are a very important voting block. They have traditionally voted Democratic, and they put their money where their mouth is. They were very instrumental in helping Obama be elected as President.
However after the election, we have all learned that Pres. Obama is a combination Muslim/Marxist. The Marxist aspect generally does not bother US Jews. While they tend to operate on the benefits of a private enterprise system, they have a strong leaning toward socialism, which is why they generally vote democratic as a block.
Having had Jewish support to put him in office, Pres. Obama is now proceeding with his previously disguised program of developing a Muslim US society. To do so, he needs Muslim support. The number of potential Muslim supporters/voters in the US and abroad far exceeds the potential Jewish support, for which reason he is wiling to throw Jewish support "under the bus".
EIN News says, "White House Goes on the Offensive Against Netanyahu. Israel's government was yesterday facing the worst chill in relations with the U.S. since taking office after a top White House official said the announcement of plans to expand an East Jerusalem settlement seemed "calculated to undermine" the negotiating process. (independent.co.uk)".
This is a very interesting development.
US Jews are a very important voting block. They have traditionally voted Democratic, and they put their money where their mouth is. They were very instrumental in helping Obama be elected as President.
However after the election, we have all learned that Pres. Obama is a combination Muslim/Marxist. The Marxist aspect generally does not bother US Jews. While they tend to operate on the benefits of a private enterprise system, they have a strong leaning toward socialism, which is why they generally vote democratic as a block.
Having had Jewish support to put him in office, Pres. Obama is now proceeding with his previously disguised program of developing a Muslim US society. To do so, he needs Muslim support. The number of potential Muslim supporters/voters in the US and abroad far exceeds the potential Jewish support, for which reason he is wiling to throw Jewish support "under the bus".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
