Classroom Socialism

    The following came from an Associate:

"An economics teacher at a local school made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama/ Biden socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The teacher then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on the Obama/Biden plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
 
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the teacher told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, and gives to those who do nothing, no-one will try or want to succeed."

Here are also some truths and ramifications regarding socialism:

"1. You can not legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation."

The Ice Cream and the Cow

    The following was sent to me by an Associate, but originally came from a teacher in the Nashville area:

    "We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.'  The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching 3rd grade.
    The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.  We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.  To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.  We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.

    We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

    The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.

    I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.

    I had never seen Olivia's mother.
    The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.

    Jamie went first.

    He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place.
    He ended by promising to do his very best.

    Everyone applauded and he sat down.

    Now is was Olivia's turn to speak.

    Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.

    The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."

    She surely would say more. She did not have to.

    A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They took her at her word.

    Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She didn't know.
    The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream...

    Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

    Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year olds.

    They want ice cream.

    The other 48.6% percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."

    THIS is the ice cream Obama promised us! ! ! ! ! !

      
    Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else ! ! ! !

    THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED, AND MAY GET ELECTED AGAIN,
 BY THOSE WHO WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE!

    And, that is why the "middle class is now the dependency class"
.

    CLASS DISMISSED ! !

Mitt Romney Unlikable?

    The following has been sent to me by Associate Dave:

"A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney not being “likable” or that he doesn’t “relate well” to people. So after much research, we have come up with a Top Ten List to explain this “unlikablility.”

Why Mitt Romney is Unlikable?

Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney:

1. Handsome, with gracious, statesman like aura. Looks like central casting's #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.

2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.

3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)

4. Can't speak in a fake, southern, "black preacher voice" when necessary.

5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School... and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed.

6. Doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today's America ?

7. Represents an America of "yesterday", where people believed in God, went to Church, didn't screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS!

8. Has a family of five great sons... and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that "choice" deserves America's scorn.

9. Oh yes... he's a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.

10. And one more point... pundits say because of his wealth, he can't relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that's because he made that money HIMSELF... as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn't understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you un-relatable to Americans.

My goodness, it's a strange world, isn't it?

*****************************************************
Personal Information:

His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old
His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan
He was raised in Bloomfield Hills , Michigan
He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they have five children.

Education:

B.A. from Brigham Young University ,
J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University

Religion:

Mormon - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints

Working Background:

After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary. After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney.

In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States.

In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.

He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.

Some Interesting Facts about Romney:

Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.

Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply and many others.

He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign
1 year.

He was an unpaid intern in his dad's governor's office for eight years.

He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years.

He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years.

He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years.

He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.

Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men.

And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income... Just for comparison purposes, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%.
Mitt Romney is Trustworthy:
He will show us his birth certificate

He will show us his high school and college transcripts.

He will show us his social security card.

He will show us his law degree.

He will show us his draft notice.

He will show us his medical records.

He will show us his income tax records.

He will show us he has nothing to hide.

Mitt Romney's background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States.

You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is, and that he won't desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or practice fiscal irresponsibility. I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the current regime has gotten us into. We won't like all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with Romney's background can do it.

He never was a "Community Organizer", never took drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the US.
Is his responsible and clean lifestyle something that should be held against him?

Just imagine the contrast between the Romneys in the White House compared with the current occupants. It is highly likely that the Romneys would not hypocritically and extravagantly spend on hugely expensive vacations, at the taxpayers' expense. The more I see and learn of Mitt Romney and his family the more I like."

Federal Farm Bill

Open email to Representative Neugebauer:

Randy,
    I read your latest newsletter.
    We don't need a farm bill to protect farmers.
    The economic deficiencies for seasonal variations in farm productivity can be covered by private business insurance companies.
    The federal government should get out of the insurance business.

The Fruits of Appeasement

The following article was submitted by an Associate, Anonymous CJ:

"None [few] of you were around in the late 1930s when Hitler was flexing his military muscle in Europe. At that time the Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain, met with Hitler in Munich and offered peace in exchange for Hitler reining in his forces. Chamberlain was hailed as a peace maker, and the Poet Laureate of England even wrote an ode in praise of him. Needless to say, Hitler ignored the agreement and soon overran Europe. World War II had begun.

We are now witnessing a repeat of that ignominious event. Obama, the President of the United States, is now trying to appease Iran. Hopefully, there will be no praise of him as a peacemaker and certainly no odes of praise written about him.

In order to reverse this folly, he must be voted out of office and the United States must resume its position of strength in the Middle East. Tyrants do not understand appeasement. They see it as weakness.  They only understand strength.

CJ"

Welcoming the National Democratic Convention to Charlotte

The following article was sent to me by one of my Associates: 

 " by Rev. Austin Miles CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (9/11/12) When the DNC came to Charlotte, area churches, 100 of them, offered hospitality, not knowing how much the Dems hate God and would actually boo God at the convention. They had no idea how that hatred would be directed at them and their churches.  

The Sunday before the DNC, over 9000 people had come together to pray for the convention. Then, wanting to extend hospitality to the visitors to their city, 56 of the churches set out to "Adopt-a-Delegation." They put together gift baskets featuring Carolina Pralines and a letter welcoming them to the city and offering assistance in transportation, childcare or spiritual matters.  

According to writer, Todd Starnes, The DNC banned the churches from distributing the gift baskets to delegates because, DNC said, the congregations hold values that are contrary to the party platform. Read that carefully.
David Benham, one of the organizers of the outreach said, "We were just trying to display Southern hospitality." DNC officials, however, conveyed to city leaders that the Christians would not be allowed to present their gift baskets. Even the Charlotte Mayor's office jumped in to tell the churches not to participate, saying that their views on women's rights are contrary to the platform. That's right..the same platform that booed God later.  

Benham then asked if they could send welcome letters to the delegates. Again, the DNC refused, because, they said, "The churches hold pro-life values."  

The baskets did not contain a single political or pro-life message. They just wanted to give them regional candles and a welcome letter. The DNC refused to return numerous phone calls seeking comment.  But it gets worse. When a gathering of 200 Muslims showed up to pray for the convention, the Dems welcomed them with open arms and the liberal media gave extensive national coverage.  

It is ironic that this day, in the shadow of that Islamic prayer event, we commemorate the greatest tragedy in American History, when Muslims attacked America on September 11, 2001, brutally killing thousands of innocent people. Muslims who publicly state their hatred of our country with fierce determination to kill us all and put America under Sharia Law, are welcomed by the Democratic Party while Christians are pushed out of sight like criminals because they respect life and hold family values.  

These are the same democrats who want you to vote them into office to direct the United States of America and every life from beginning to end. It is obvious that we must not let this happen.  

Our thanks to Rev. Ed Berkey (retired) who alerted us to this story.
Austin Miles."

More on Entitlements

    One of our Associates says that Social Security and Medicare are entitlements in the same category as food stamps, rent subsidies and the like.
    My position is that the so-called entitlements are of two types; earned and unearned. I consider Social Security and Medicare are earned entitlements, because I put money into them with the intention of obtaining a return, as I would with any insurance program.
    Our Associate says that this is an improper way to look at it. A government expenditure pie chart shows significant expenditures for Social Security and Medicare and includes all other expenditures, such as the military, foodstamp's etc. On that basis, our Associate says I should give up receiving Social Security and Medicare payments, on the basis of principle, similar to the fact that I would not accept payments for food stamps. My latest reply is as follows:

     "You are right from the government's point of view. Social Security is the best example. It was originally intended to be an insurance program with separate funding. In other words it was the same as a private insurance company collecting premiums to pay against claims. The policyholders had a balance of credit toward the insurance company or government, which in turn was an insurance company or government debt.
    This has been adulterated so that the the US government no longer regards it as a debt. In other words it was a debt which the government found convenient to disallow. It is not basically different than a program which would also disallow government debt from sale of government bonds.
    From my point of view, I still regarded Social Security and Medicare as a government debt to me, because I paid and continue to pay the insurance premiums. In view of that, I am entitled to continue receiving monthly Social Security payments. Medicare is similarly included.
    Look at it this way. The Chinese have bought US government bonds, on which the US government has a debt to the Chinese. If the US government now decides that it no longer has this debt and continues to pay the Chinese something on general principles or as an entitlement, do you think that the Chinese would agree to that logic?"

Entitlements

Open email to Congress:
 

   I continue to complain about the over-expenditures of the federal government and the continually mounting national debt. In this context, my obsession has been to address the problem of "entitlements".
 

   One of my Associates says that I will get nowhere in trying to convince others to give up their special interests and entitlements, as long as I retain mine. He says that in accepting Social Security and Medicare I am being hypocritical and I am choosing to empower politicians with my money in those areas.
 

    My Associate is a rather astute person, and I am rather surprised to see that he is confused on this point. I also suspect that many others may have similar confusion, including members of Congress. It is for that reason, I am addressing the subject of "entitlements". 

   I looked into the Internet definition of "entitlement" and found that it is a guaranteed right by law to receive a benefit, usually a payment. Social Security and Medicare are usually included as examples of entitlements. However, an antonym of "entitlements" is "earned". Therefore, a synonym of "entitlements" would be "unearned".
 

    On that basis, we need to reconsider government payments to individuals. Rather than lump them all together under the term "entitlements", we should distinguish between earned and unearned benefits. The reason for making this distinction is a form of economic logic. Receiving an unearned benefit is a form of charity. Receiving an earned benefit is a form of compensation; that is "something for something", for which the legal term is "quid pro quo".
 

    To be specific, I interpret my Social Security payments as earned benefits. For the many years that I worked, I paid the federal government a Social Security insurance premium. The basic contract was that after a retirement age, I would stop paying premiums, and start to receive payments based upon what I had previously paid. The "policy" condition was that I would receive such payments only as long as I lived. If I died early, I would have received few payments and the Social Security Trust Fund would have made a profit on my "policy". Since I have had the good fortune of living for many years, the Social Security Trust Fund, is likely taking a loss on my "policy". However, that is the basis of all insurance operations, whether private or government sponsored. But I repeat, the Social Security payments, which I now receive, are an EARNED benefit. I paid my premiums.
 

    Going on to Medicare, this is also a form of medical insurance. For all of the years that I worked, I paid each month an FICA fee. I still pay this on the part-time job that I hold. FICA is an acronym for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Notice the word "insurance" in the title? The online dictionary describes FICA as a "U.S. law requiring a deduction from paychecks and income that goes toward the Social Security program and Medicare." In other words, the FICA fee, which I have been paying for years has not only been my premium payments for a Social Security policy, which I covered above, but also included my premium payments for a Medicare policy. As previously indicated, I continue to pay that based on my part-time income, but I also am required to make additional payments, apparently just because I'm a citizen. A Medicare insurance premium is deducted each month from my Social Security benefit. When I go to the doctor periodically, Medicare pays a part of the cost. However, recall that I have previously paid and continue to pay Medicare insurance premiums. Therefore, any Medicare payments to medical practitioners are an indirect EARNED benefit for me. In addition, I carry with First Health an medical insurance policy covering only prescription drugs. I pay the insurance premium monthly. In total, I have two forms of medical insurance; one government Medicare and one private First Health. I have previously paid and continue to pay Medicare and only recently pay First Health. All health monetary benefits I receive are EARNED.
 

   Let's go on to other potential government payments. These might be Social Security Disability, Unemployment, Food Stamps, Housing Subsidies, and perhaps others. I have never received a nickel from these so-called "entitlements" and well I should not, because they are not benefits, which I have earned, contrary to Social Security and Medicare. I could theoretically say that I am entitled to them as earned benefits, because I paid federal income taxes for a great number of years and for which a portion of those payments has been allocated to those unearned benefits. But this would be a stretch and is antagonistic to my basic moral integrity. The fact that the government confiscates my tax money to give to others is abhorrent to me, as a believer in private enterprise, the right of private property, and individual responsibility. But, there is not much I can do about it, except write this letter to you in the hope that your sense of responsibility and fair play will help to put these things into proper perspective.

US Response to Middle East Demonstrations

    One of our very perceptive Associates has put his finger on the US problem of dealing with the Middle East.
    The population of the Middle East is predominantly Muslim. For each Middle East government, there is no separation of church and state; i.e. each Middle East government is Islamic and operates according to Islamic law. Under Islamic law, there are also no personal freedoms, of which one result is that no criticism of the prophet Mohammed is allowed under penalty of death. The population of each country strongly believes in this and is willing to support it with violent action if necessary. Since each government is on the same wavelength, with its population and the government and populations of other Middle East countries, there is unanimity in belief and action.
    Conversely in the United States, we have two differences. The first is that we have separation of church and state, which means that our federal government has no state religion, and therefore no religious rules under which it must operate. The second is that we have a Bill of Rights as part of our Constitution of which the first article specifies freedom of speech. This means that any individual can speak or write anything he desires, including criticism of the government. Since there is also no state religion, any such criticism of government, does not automatically include religious criticism.
    The basis of Middle East population demonstrations against the US is that they have never been exposed to individual freedom of speech or writing. They automatically assume that any religiously derogatory comment or article spoken or written by in individual is the opinion of the "collective", which means the population as a whole and the government. If such criticism by a US individual involved Christianity or Hinduism, it would not be significant. However, any criticism of the prophet Mohammed hits them right between the eyes, because they and their governments are Islamic and any criticism thereof is punishable by death; it's serious.
    The US government has several possibilities of response to demonstrations against Americans and the US government.
    First, it could attempt to explain to or educate Middle East Muslims on the differences between the two types of government, specifying that any derogatory writing by an individual is not the position of the American people or the US government. I consider such an attempt would be futile. Islamic law is so ingrained in the Middle East population that it would be impossible to have that population see an alternative view.
    The second possibility is for the US government to change its adherence to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This would then allow the US government to prohibit any individual writings derogatory to Islam and the prophet Mohammed. If this action is taken and the information transmitted to Middle East populations, it is likely that demonstrators would be pacified, at least from the religious aspect. However, such action on the part of the US government would solicit serious objections on the part of the US population. The US government has already been weakening its adherence to the Constitution, with considerable objection from a segment of the US population.
    The third possibility is to clearly indicate to Middle East governments and populations that the US operates under personal freedoms, which are not necessarily a reflection of the population as a whole or the US government, and that is unchangeable. Whether Muslims understand it, like it or not, it is US government policy and will continue to be followed. The repercussions are that Middle East violence against Americans and various US government installations, such as embassies and consulates, may increase. The State Department and the military will be required to judge which locations should be defended and which should be deserted.
    I have also in a previous writing mentioned the use of foreign aid as a tool. All foreign aid to the Middle East should be immediately stopped. In the stopping, an explanation also should be given that aid to individual governments will be made on the basis of cooperation, which means attempts to control their populations in demonstrations against the US and guaranteeing physical security of US embassies, consulates, and Americans generally living in their countries. It is unknown what effect this action will have, but money talks and it is likely that such a program will be at least partially effective.

Recouping Government Grant Money

The National Science Foundation has found a new way to spend your money.

For many years, the National Science Foundation has used your money to offer grants to university professors for research on their favor projects. I have pointed out in previous writing that most of these grants are politically motivated in attempting to justify various governmental projects, such as global warming. Many other projects have no practical significance. For example, we recently heard in the news about $1 million plus grant for the study of some kind of organism in Latin America.

The thought has apparently entered the mind of NSF that some of the research generated at universities might be used to establish commercial organizations. For that purpose, they have set up a new procedure by which researchers can take a 10-day course at your expense by charging it to NSF. The course uses webinars and consultants to help determine whether a particular research is commercially viable. A $50,000 grant covers the costs related to the course and travel of University professors over a six-month period.

It may appear admirable to check whether any of the research is commercially viable, but it is another expenditure of taxpayer money.

I suggest that since the original grant involved taxpayer money, now, with the addition of furthering public fund expenditure for courses on commercialization, any subsequent businesses which are developed based on the research and the commercial investigation course should be publicly owned. This means that until the business can be sold publicly, dividends should be paid to the government for reimbursement of taxpayer funds advanced.

Libya Terrorist Attack

    Our associate, anonymous CJ, has the following comment concerning the attack on our US Consulate in Libya:

    Our ambassador to the UN, Suzan Rice, made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows proclaiming that the violence in Libya was caused by this movie trailer. Either she is not too well-informed or went ahead anyhow because the administration has now admitted the obvious; that is, the attack on the consulate and the killing of our ambassador was a terrorist act. The ringleader for the attack has even been identified as a member of Al Qaeda who was captured and held at Guantánamo and released to Libya in 2007.

So much for the credibility of the Obama administration.

A later comment was:

The double tragedy is that we cannot trust our President.

Bogus Report on Fast and Furious

    The Inspector General of the Justice Department, Michael Horowitz, recently released a 140-page report concerning his investigation of a border agent's death in a sting operation known as "Fast and Furious".
    Fox News has reported the essence of Horowitz's report on TV. It is a basic recrimination of incompetency, poor judgment, inadequacy and any other similar adjectives, for those involved. A key point is the claim that Atty. Gen. Eric Holder was not involved nor responsible for the inadequacies. It may also be recalled that Congress has been attempting for almost 2 years to obtain all of the information concerning Fast and Furious from Eric Holder, and the House Oversight Committee has filed a civil contempt suit against Eric Holder.
    I have not read Michael Horowitz's report and had no justification for belief on his conclusions. However, I thought it might be advisable to check some of the background in order to properly judge whether the report is worth reading and whether its conclusion should be seriously considered.
    Congress created the Office of Inspector General for various federal government departments through the Inspector General Act of 1978 and amended 1988. The act itself says that the Inspector Generals are appointed by the President. Wikipedia also says that Inspector Generals may not conduct investigations involving attorneys.
    Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz reports to Pres. Obama. Justice Attorney General Eric Holder reports to Pres. Obama. President Obama has every reason to protect his appointees.
    Since Inspector General Michael Horowitz did not have the authority to investigate Attorney General Eric Holder, by limitations of the Inspector General act of 1978, any mention of Eric Holder's involvement or noninvolvement in Fast and Furious is inappropriate. Therefore, the comment of Eric Holder's noninvolvement can be interpreted as a political statement, not consistent with fact.
    In view of the above, do you see any reason why I should read the 140-page report, nor believe anything that is said about it?
    However, there is something even more important about the situation. That is, the claim that Eric Holder was not involved In Fast and Furious and has no responsibility for its deficiencies. This is a complete turnaround for responsibilities of bosses that had existed for the last few hundred years. In essence, tradition says, and reaffirmed by Harry Truman, "The Buck Stops Here". What Pres. Truman meant, and what everybody knew, is that the boss is ultimately responsible for the successes or failures in the results of the organization. Since the boss has the opportunity of choosing adequately performing people and firing those of inadequacy, he has full authority and responsibility for performance.
    In the Fast and Furious case, Eric Holder either knew or should have known what was going on and should have taken any steps necessary to correct the program. He is primarily responsible for the failure and has been assisted in the failure by Pres. Obama, and also assisted by Congress, who has ultimate control.
    What really concerns me is the more general tendency of organizational leaders (bosses) to absolve themselves from any situation in the organization where things have gone wrong. These bosses are paid for doing things right and should be fired when they do things wrong.

US Foreign Policy and Foreign Aid

    In the past few weeks, there have been a number of major demonstrations in various cities around the world against the United States. These demonstrations involved attacking US embassies and consulates, burning the American flag, shouting and written placards against the US, and in one case the killing of several State Department foreign employees.
    These demonstrations have called into question the validity of US foreign policy and particularly the continuance of foreign aid.
    These are good questions, but the subsequent discussions by various news analysts and government representatives involve only minutia, without addressing the main subjects. It is past time for the use of a little common sense.
    It is not important concerning who is responsible for the foreign dissatisfaction, or how it originated. Let us simply consider it is there and widespread in various countries. There are several obvious actions we could take. Try to make the demonstrators love is by giving them gifts and nice small-talk promises. That is pretty much what we have been doing up to now, and if it has not led to the demonstrations, it has at least not forestalled them.
    Another alternative is to get out. Close the embassies and consulates, with return of American employees to the US and advise Americans living abroad to return to the US or stay abroad at their own risk. That sounds a little extreme and some have already said that we should stay "engaged". The proper course of action should be a partial activity. Beef-up security on some embassies and consulates, close others, and advise Americans abroad that they are there at some risk to themselves.
    Another tool we have at our disposal is foreign aid. We have been giving the governments of various countries tremendous amounts of money. The basis of these grants is rather nebulous. Perhaps we do this to further democracy (nationbuilding), which is ridiculous. We don't even have democracy in the US. We are rushing headlong into socialism, and have been for 60 years.
    Perhaps we have been granting foreign aid for "services rendered". That might be allowance for US military bases, which would obviously be justified, providing we in fact need a military base at that location. There may be other justifiable reasons for large amounts of foreign aid, but they are not obvious and likely don't exist. One thought is that we are generally a compassionate people, and like to help others who have a less money. But, should we be borrowing money to help the less fortunate? If we have to borrow, it is obvious that we can't help ourselves.    Go back to services rendered. That could be interpreted as general government cooperation. If the Egyptian people are demonstrating against the United States, what is the position of the Egyptian government? Does that government agree with the actions of its people? If it does, there's no justification for continuation of foreign aid, because there is no service rendered. If it does not agree with the actions of its people, what is it doing to change those actions?
    The response of the US should be obvious, wherever there is demonstration against the US, and that demonstration is claimed to be based on a militant minority, such as extreme Islamists, we should immediately discontinue foreign aid, with a statement that when you (the foreign government) get things under control, so that we can have reasonable cooperation, we will reconsider some form of foreign aid. Simply put, we will borrow money to support peace and bi-national economic development using foreign-based US private and government citizens, providing you can make a physically safe environment.

Specific Federal Spending Cuts

    These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. Notice that Social Security and the military are NOT on the list. Compliments of Gordon Anderson.

* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.
* Save America's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Duplicate Education Programs --  $1.3 billion    annual savings.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings..
* Congressional Printing and Binding (1/2) -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.
* Federal Travel Budget (1/2) -- $7.5 billion annual savings
* Federal Vehicle Budget (-20%) -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings.
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives & Native Hawaiians -- $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings.
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
* Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S. Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings...
* Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
* Presidential Campaign Fund -- $77.5 million annual savings.
* Federal Office Space Acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: -- $180 million annual savings.
* Collection of unpaid federal employees taxes -- $1 billion total savings.
* Union Activities by federal employees -- $120 million annual savings.
* Excess federal properties-- $15 billion total savings.
* Death gratuity for Members of Congress.
* Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
* United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings.
* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
* Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings.
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

*TOTAL SAVINGS: 2.5 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS

Billions of Dollars in Wasted Government Grants to Universities

    Celebration in Washington! NIGMS turns 50 years old!    Never heard of NIGMS? No reason you should have. It is only one of a host of government agencies that give away your money.
    NIGM is an acronym for National Institute of General Medical Sciences. It is part of NIH (National Institute of Health). It gives away 11% of all of the money given away as grants to universities by NIH. That 11% constitutes 4700 grants at any one time, with an average of $343,847 per grant. Therefore, the total value of the grants appears to be $1.6  billion. Since that is only 11% of the total, all of NIH grants appear to be $14.7 billion. If the US population is about 350 million, that's $42 per person or $168 for a family of four  . These numbers were taken from Britt Erickson's article of August 20 in Chemical and Engineering News. . Let's also remember that this is only NIH. It is the biggest grant donor, but there are several others of substantial size.
    The big question is, as an average citizen, what did you get for your money? Can you name some great accomplishment that your expenditure was able to buy. Did you get a cancer cure for $168 or did you learn that a butterfly flaps its wings 14 times per minute? Compare that with private industry improvements to your computer operation, better TVs, and smart phones made available to you for purchase without putting up a nickel deposit in the hope that you might get something.
    Isn't it high time that we put a stop to this sort of folly? As a society, we didn't get into $16 trillion debt, because of rational expenditures. It's because of this sort of ridiculous shenanigans by government agencies giving away our money.

Can the Government/Academic Research Complex Be Broken?

What goes around comes around.

In 1942, I started graduate work in Organic Chemistry at Cornell University. I was also a Teaching Assistant in the Gas and Fuel Laboratory. Free tuition. After about a year, I switched to a fellowship supported by Merrill, a pharmaceutical company. I prepared various compounds of the benzothiazole series for testing as antimalarials. Again, free tuition.

In the subsequent 70 years, the financial situation of academic research is radically different. With the growth of government, essentially all academic research is now supported by government grants as opposed to private companies and foundations. The basis of this change is that voters do not pay attention to how their money is spent, while corporate managers are considerably more astute in obtaining value for their expenditures.

It now appears that something "new" has been discovered. In the September 3 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Rick Mullin reports that the Temple University School of Pharmacy is trying to break the developed system of government/University research by injecting private industry. We wish good luck to Temple, but as stated previously as long as the system allows the injection of public money into University research, there is little likelihood that private industry with its more rigid financial standards would have a chance to break the 70-year-old system.

The only possibility is that voters could possibly wake up to being more concerned about how their money is being spent and perhaps make some radical changes in government grants. We will see how the next election develops.

Obama's Foreign Policy

    Anonymous CJ says the following, to which I heartily agree:

"The violence sweeping North Africa and the Middle East is the clear result of Obama's policy of apology and "leading from behind".  The world leaders including those in arab countries know that he is a weakling.  The Russians and Chinese are ready to step up as we retreat.  It is a tragedy.

My message of yesterday is repeated below. Charles Krauthammer, one of the intelligent analysts, made the same comments this evening."

CJ

"We are now witnessing the outcome of the Obama policy of apologies for America and "leading from behind". You may or not recall but his first act as president was to tour Europe and the Middle East and apologize for America's "arrogance".  Then he attempted to engage the Mullahs of  Iran by offering our friendship.  Follow that with abandoning Iraq completely on the pretense of a failed negotiation of the rules regarding our military personnel.  Afghanistan was the "right war". He added to the troop presence there and remarkably set a date for withdrawal at the same time.  In Libya, we led from behind.  We are now reaping the whirlwind of his failed leadership.  World leaders of all stripes have known since the beginning that Obama is a weakling.  Until we change the leadership of this country and elect people who believe in our principles, our country will suffer.  It is tragic"

Why No Jobs?

    It's really simple. There are only two reasons.
    Both reasons relate to manufacturing or more generally to the production of goods. The first reason is that manufacturers in the US have consistently become more efficient in their production through use of machinery, which automatically reduces the need for employees.
    The second reason is that there are many areas where goods production has been exported, which means that foreigners are holding jobs to produce goods for us. An example is clothing.
    I will not address what we can do about it. We will leave that to the politicians.
    I doubt whether we will want to force our US manufacturers to become more inefficient, although we have been moving in that direction with a boatload of unnecessary regulations.
    Another option is to do nothing, which will leave higher rates of unemployment. Those holding high paying jobs will then pay high taxes to support the unemployed. This is the route we are following now.

Clinton for What He Is

    CJ anonymous says the following:

Looking back over the history of our country, it is interesting to note the qualities of our political leaders over the centuries. We have had some very strong and principled leaders and some very shady ones. Bill and Hillary Clinton are a couple of recent examples. Consider that Bill Clinton lied under oath as President of the United States; was impeached by the House of Representatives; barely survived removal from office and was later disbarred. When the Clinton's left the White House, they took with them gifts that did not belong to them but belonged to the Presidency and were required to return them. They are a couple of very aggressive political leaders in the Democratic party. Interestingly enough, Bill Clinton has refurbished his image and is now truly the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.

I hope this brief discourse makes my point.

A Child's View of the Homeless

    The following was submitted to me by an anonymous associate. I suspect it may be fictitious but whether true or not it makes the point.

"Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President...what would be the first thing you would do?" She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people." Her parents beamed with pride! "Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that!" I told her. "What do you mean?" she replied. So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out and give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house." She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?" I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party." Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore."