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?

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

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)

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".

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?

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.

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.