Open Email to:
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
The war in South Sudan is heating up.. The two sides are fighting about who will control the oil there, and the economic benefits thereof. However, they will not admit this. Rather, they will claim that the war is about ethnic differences. Let's remember that there were ethnic differences long before oil was discovered in South Sudan, and while there may have been a few skirmishes, as is characteristic of black African countries, there was not all-out war.
The key point relating to US interests in South Sudan is that there aren't any. We have no designs on Sudanese oil. It is merely an insignificant contributor to the world oil market. The only reason we are there, in the form of an embassy and related support is to justify the US position of worldwide power, which has no practicality other than ego satisfaction. We should not have been there in the first place. For Americans now working in the oil fields or missionaries trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, the US Embassy and related forces should not be justified to protect these people. Since it now appears to be too dangerous to be there, these people should all go home and the US should close its embassy.
However, we appear to come back to ego, since President Obama’s sent 50 American troops "to protect assets such as the U.S. Embassy in Juba". He also told congressional leaders he is prepared to commit more American assets if the fighting worsens. He said, “As I monitor the situation in South Sudan, I may take further action to support the security of U.S. citizens, personnel and property, including our embassy, in South Sudan),” Notice that he did not say that we should all get out. He obviously wants to continue meddling in something that's none of his business and asked great cost to American taxpayers.
What about the humanitarian aspects? 800,000 people were killed in the ethnic war in Rwanda. Should we try to avoid that happening in Sudan? Well, it's their war. They started it, and they can finish it. If it gets to 100,000 people killed, I'll be sorry, but I will not have had any business to meddle with other people's private lives, including death.
The Bible also says there will always be wars. It doesn't say why; only that is a fact of life. One can also think of it as a God induced method of population control. This does not encourage me to personally start wars or contribute to their continuance, but I and my country do have the option of not being involved, unless our personal or national lives are threatened.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Monday, December 23, 2013
How Could NSA Have Stopped 9/11 Disaster?
Open Email to:
Rep. Michael McCaul, Chairman House Committee on Homeland Security.
Sen. Thomas Carper, Chairman Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.
Dear Rep. McCaul and Sen. Carper,
The National Security Agency's (NSA) continued confiscation of American citizen's phone records is clearly violates the Fourth Amendmen to the Constitution, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. In spite of that, there is a continued drumbeat to allow the NSA to continue its unconstitutional operation, presumably on the basis that a mechanism for control of terrorism is more important than individual citizen rights. Notice that this is socialism versus democracy.
Rep. Peter T. King of New York now makes the general claim that if the NSA had been in operation prior to the 9/11 disaster involving the downing of the two New York towers, that disaster have been avoided. In effect, Peter King is saying that we must continue to ignore NSA's violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to avoid future disasters.
The thing that's a little sickening about this statement is that it is all too common, wherein a person of supposed authority makes a general statement lacking specific details to support his position. Because Peter King is a Representative of the federal government from the state of New York, is that a reason that I should take him at face value no matter what he says?
I want to know how operation of the NSA in its present form could have avoided the 9/11 disaster. Peter King is obligated to supply that information, to support his general claim.
Rep. Michael McCaul, Chairman House Committee on Homeland Security.
Sen. Thomas Carper, Chairman Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.
Dear Rep. McCaul and Sen. Carper,
The National Security Agency's (NSA) continued confiscation of American citizen's phone records is clearly violates the Fourth Amendmen to the Constitution, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. In spite of that, there is a continued drumbeat to allow the NSA to continue its unconstitutional operation, presumably on the basis that a mechanism for control of terrorism is more important than individual citizen rights. Notice that this is socialism versus democracy.
Rep. Peter T. King of New York now makes the general claim that if the NSA had been in operation prior to the 9/11 disaster involving the downing of the two New York towers, that disaster have been avoided. In effect, Peter King is saying that we must continue to ignore NSA's violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to avoid future disasters.
The thing that's a little sickening about this statement is that it is all too common, wherein a person of supposed authority makes a general statement lacking specific details to support his position. Because Peter King is a Representative of the federal government from the state of New York, is that a reason that I should take him at face value no matter what he says?
I want to know how operation of the NSA in its present form could have avoided the 9/11 disaster. Peter King is obligated to supply that information, to support his general claim.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Obamacare, Federal Budgett and Farm Bill
Open Email to Rep Neugebauer (TX):
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your latest newsletter and have the following comments:
Obamacare Security
You have commented on Obamacare security, as one of the significant faults of Obamacare.
I am not much concerned about only the security aspect of Obamacare, I'm still sick from the fact that you were part of the Republicans that voted for Obamacare to become a major socialistic part of American life. You and other Republicans would have to do a complete about-face to convince me that you are not all Socialists in disguise. The only other possibility I can think of on why you would have done this, is that you are not particularly interested in the welfare and continuance of the USA. You are more interested in holding your jobs with votes from low information voters.
Federal Budget
Congratulations on your decision to vote against the Compromise Federal Budget. You said, "The compromise that was reached allows for more federal spending now in exchange for promised savings ten years down the road. I’m just not confident that we’ll ever see those savings".
The compromise budget allows a reduction in spending, but is still an increase over previous spending. This gives not only a continuing unbalanced budget, but also will lead to an increase in federal debt, which is already abominable. Simply put, Congress is not facing up to any realistic need to cut the federal spending and the size of government.
Farm Bill
The House will have a one-month extension to complete work on a five-year Farm Bill. Your priority remains the five-year Farm Bill.
The only way I could agree to a five-year Farm Bill is that in five years the government will be out of the farming business. As I said before, farming is a business and does not need government incentives or control. I notice also that you again dodge the fact that the Farm Bill under discussion likely still contains the food stamp program, which is welfare and completely unrelated to farming.
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your latest newsletter and have the following comments:
Obamacare Security
You have commented on Obamacare security, as one of the significant faults of Obamacare.
I am not much concerned about only the security aspect of Obamacare, I'm still sick from the fact that you were part of the Republicans that voted for Obamacare to become a major socialistic part of American life. You and other Republicans would have to do a complete about-face to convince me that you are not all Socialists in disguise. The only other possibility I can think of on why you would have done this, is that you are not particularly interested in the welfare and continuance of the USA. You are more interested in holding your jobs with votes from low information voters.
Federal Budget
Congratulations on your decision to vote against the Compromise Federal Budget. You said, "The compromise that was reached allows for more federal spending now in exchange for promised savings ten years down the road. I’m just not confident that we’ll ever see those savings".
The compromise budget allows a reduction in spending, but is still an increase over previous spending. This gives not only a continuing unbalanced budget, but also will lead to an increase in federal debt, which is already abominable. Simply put, Congress is not facing up to any realistic need to cut the federal spending and the size of government.
Farm Bill
The House will have a one-month extension to complete work on a five-year Farm Bill. Your priority remains the five-year Farm Bill.
The only way I could agree to a five-year Farm Bill is that in five years the government will be out of the farming business. As I said before, farming is a business and does not need government incentives or control. I notice also that you again dodge the fact that the Farm Bill under discussion likely still contains the food stamp program, which is welfare and completely unrelated to farming.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Abidini Folly
Mrs. Abidini makes me a little sick.
For those who may not know Mrs. Abidini, she is now taking up tearjerking time on national TV, complaining about the fact that her husband is in an Iranian jail and the United States government is doing nothing about it.
The facts are that Naghmeh Abidini is of Iranian extraction. Notice her first name. Somehow she became an American citizen as a child. She married Saeed Abidini, an Iranian Muslim, who converted to Christianity and also became an American citizen, presumably because he married an American citizen.
The Abidini's decided to do Christian missionary work in Iran.
Now, let's remember that contrary to the United States, with freedom of religion, Iran is a Muslim country operating under Muslim doctrine. Part of the doctrine is to preserve Islam and extend it as much as possible through his threats of death to nonbelievers who do not agree to be converted to Islam. You may not like that approach, and it certainly is different than that of the United States. However, it is not the responsibility of the American government to convert the world to Christianity, especially since the First Amendment to the Constitution says that the US government must not show partiality to any religion, even in the US.
The Abidini's were able to do considerable missionary work for Christianity in Iran, but the Iranian government soon discovered the threat to Islam and started to crack down. The Abidini's wisely left Iran and came back to the United States, where they are now both citizens.
Saeed Abidini stupidly went back to Iran, presumably to see his family. Remember that although he is an American citizen, he was a born Iranian and considered an Iranian citizen. The Iranian government picked him up and jailed him basically for proselytizing against the national religion of Islam.
I am partial to Christianity and have nothing against Christian missionary efforts. I also understand that many Christian missionaries work under hardship conditions, which they accept. However it seems to me that everyone should have a reasonable degree of prudence in whatever they do. When missionaries see a high probability that they will be placed in a foreign jail for their actions, it seems stupid to me that they would continue to subject themselves to that risk. Apparently the Abidini's decided to travel that razors edge, and unfortunately one of them fell off.
Is it now the responsibility of the American government to save a missionary from a stupid decision? I think not.
I also believe that I will not obtain a lot of support in this position, because in the last 50 or more years, American citizens have culturally become tied up with absolving themselves from personal responsibility and relying on the government to bail them out of any disastrous situation, no matter how stupid they were in the first place.
For those who may not know Mrs. Abidini, she is now taking up tearjerking time on national TV, complaining about the fact that her husband is in an Iranian jail and the United States government is doing nothing about it.
The facts are that Naghmeh Abidini is of Iranian extraction. Notice her first name. Somehow she became an American citizen as a child. She married Saeed Abidini, an Iranian Muslim, who converted to Christianity and also became an American citizen, presumably because he married an American citizen.
The Abidini's decided to do Christian missionary work in Iran.
Now, let's remember that contrary to the United States, with freedom of religion, Iran is a Muslim country operating under Muslim doctrine. Part of the doctrine is to preserve Islam and extend it as much as possible through his threats of death to nonbelievers who do not agree to be converted to Islam. You may not like that approach, and it certainly is different than that of the United States. However, it is not the responsibility of the American government to convert the world to Christianity, especially since the First Amendment to the Constitution says that the US government must not show partiality to any religion, even in the US.
The Abidini's were able to do considerable missionary work for Christianity in Iran, but the Iranian government soon discovered the threat to Islam and started to crack down. The Abidini's wisely left Iran and came back to the United States, where they are now both citizens.
Saeed Abidini stupidly went back to Iran, presumably to see his family. Remember that although he is an American citizen, he was a born Iranian and considered an Iranian citizen. The Iranian government picked him up and jailed him basically for proselytizing against the national religion of Islam.
I am partial to Christianity and have nothing against Christian missionary efforts. I also understand that many Christian missionaries work under hardship conditions, which they accept. However it seems to me that everyone should have a reasonable degree of prudence in whatever they do. When missionaries see a high probability that they will be placed in a foreign jail for their actions, it seems stupid to me that they would continue to subject themselves to that risk. Apparently the Abidini's decided to travel that razors edge, and unfortunately one of them fell off.
Is it now the responsibility of the American government to save a missionary from a stupid decision? I think not.
I also believe that I will not obtain a lot of support in this position, because in the last 50 or more years, American citizens have culturally become tied up with absolving themselves from personal responsibility and relying on the government to bail them out of any disastrous situation, no matter how stupid they were in the first place.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Rep Neugebauer (TX) on Budget, Farm Bill, Innovation & Kids Research
Open email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your latest newsletter and comment as follows on each of your items:
Budget
You report that the Budget Conference Committee is studying a plan, while you are for Congress debating and passing separate appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. You don't say that you are actually doing anything.
Farm Bill
The key point here is that you are taking no action on separating food stamps, which are welfare, from the Farm Bill. You do not mention any of the other aspects of free goodies to farmers or why we even have a farm bill in the first place. Farming is a business and should be regarded as such. It does not need separate federal government consideration, any more than cutting hair or selling groceries.
Innovation Act
This is a ridiculous operation! You talk about trolls, who are supposedly putting the heat on patent holders for some sort of settlement to not continue questioning the validity of patents.
I previously spent some years in technology transfer, which involves the buying and selling of patents. The basis of that business was that patents must be valid. Validity is initially determined by the Patent Office in the granting of the patent. Any subsequent question on patent validity is decided by a court. A plaintiff in a patent suit undergoes considerable cost for lawyers and court costs. In a questionable case, a plaintiff will not normally undertake the suit, if there is a probability that he will lose. Similarly, the holder of the patent will not settle with the plaintiff, if he is confident that his patent is valid. If he does settle, the patent is tainted and subsequently does not have good commercial value. Patent holders realize this and know that they must occasionally bear the cost of legal patent defense. Forget the idea of patent trolls. Threat of legal suits is common in all walks of life, including patent validity. Frivolous suits should be defended in court, which will automatically reduce the occurrence of those suits.
Kids First Research Act
You want to eliminate funding for the President Election Campaign Fund – a total of $126 million – and allocate those funds towards pediatric cancer research. Again, a ridiculous proposal!
If you want to eliminate funding for a Presidential Election Campaign, do so. There is a tremendous amount of private money going into presidential elections. It seems to me that there is no need for another $126 million of mandatory taxpayer money going into the same pot to enrich the media. The federal government should also not be spending money for cancer research. There's enough private money going into that operation.
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your latest newsletter and comment as follows on each of your items:
Budget
You report that the Budget Conference Committee is studying a plan, while you are for Congress debating and passing separate appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. You don't say that you are actually doing anything.
Farm Bill
The key point here is that you are taking no action on separating food stamps, which are welfare, from the Farm Bill. You do not mention any of the other aspects of free goodies to farmers or why we even have a farm bill in the first place. Farming is a business and should be regarded as such. It does not need separate federal government consideration, any more than cutting hair or selling groceries.
Innovation Act
This is a ridiculous operation! You talk about trolls, who are supposedly putting the heat on patent holders for some sort of settlement to not continue questioning the validity of patents.
I previously spent some years in technology transfer, which involves the buying and selling of patents. The basis of that business was that patents must be valid. Validity is initially determined by the Patent Office in the granting of the patent. Any subsequent question on patent validity is decided by a court. A plaintiff in a patent suit undergoes considerable cost for lawyers and court costs. In a questionable case, a plaintiff will not normally undertake the suit, if there is a probability that he will lose. Similarly, the holder of the patent will not settle with the plaintiff, if he is confident that his patent is valid. If he does settle, the patent is tainted and subsequently does not have good commercial value. Patent holders realize this and know that they must occasionally bear the cost of legal patent defense. Forget the idea of patent trolls. Threat of legal suits is common in all walks of life, including patent validity. Frivolous suits should be defended in court, which will automatically reduce the occurrence of those suits.
Kids First Research Act
You want to eliminate funding for the President Election Campaign Fund – a total of $126 million – and allocate those funds towards pediatric cancer research. Again, a ridiculous proposal!
If you want to eliminate funding for a Presidential Election Campaign, do so. There is a tremendous amount of private money going into presidential elections. It seems to me that there is no need for another $126 million of mandatory taxpayer money going into the same pot to enrich the media. The federal government should also not be spending money for cancer research. There's enough private money going into that operation.
Military Pay
Open email to:
Rep. Rep. Joe Wilson, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel, including employment issues Senator Gillibrand, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Personnel, including military personnel compensation
Dear Rep. Wilson and Sen. Gillibrand,
The Washington Times has an article entitled, "Troops Forced to Rely on Welfare, Holiday Charity". The essence of the article is that military personnel are grossly underpaid, and must rely on food stamps and other welfare benefits in order to subsist. Numerous cases of individual hardship are included in the article.
It is not my intention here to minimize the contribution of our military personnel in the defense of our freedoms, whatever still exist. However, I would like to put military pay in perspective, so that you may judge for yourself whether there is some significant inequality, in comparison with our general public economics.
There is a significant article on the subject in http://learninginlife.hubpages.com/hub/Is-it-Worth-it-to-Join-the-Army-A-Review-of-Army-Pay, and I encourage you to read it. However, I will use a few of those statistics to support my belief that military personnel are not underpaid.
The base military pay of a military recruit directly out of high school and with no significant specialties is $18,000 per year. He or she also has free food and housing. It is said that the free food is worth $4200 per year and the housing $4800 per year. For ease of comparison, let's just consider the new recruit is receiving $22,800 per year, including food, plus free housing.
The fast food system, such as McDonald's and Burger King, have starting salaries geared to employees directly out of high school and with no significant specialties at a minimum wage of $7.90 per hour. At 40 hours per week, this is equivalent to $16,400 per year. It is my understanding that most fast food companies allow their employees free food. If we use the military food allowance of $4200 per year, this brings the total to $20,600 per year for the lowest grade McDonald's employee. This is $2200 below that for the lowest grade military employee on the same benefits.
Some may be interested in the housing aspect. Lowest grade military employees get free housing, which is considered worth $4800 per year. Under the best conditions, the lowest grade fast food employee is likely to live with his or her parents at no cost, except it is also considered worth $4800 per year.
Some may go on to say that fast food employees are underpaid, but I don't want to address that aspect. I am only trying to make a comparison of military pay with fast food pay under present realistic conditions.
Some may also say that at a starting level, fast food employees can't live on $20,600 per year, but they do, which is why they accept those jobs.
Some also may say that a military recruit, with a nonworking spouse and children, cannot live on $22,800 per year plus housing at $4800, for a total of $27,600 per year. True, but let's remember that the lowest pay scale is geared to young people just out of high school and presumably smart enough to not yet have started a family.
Therefore, we have to look at development. As young people age, they are more likely to develop families, which increases their expenses. At the same time, they also have an opportunity to improve their salaries by increasing their skills. This can be done by developing special skills which gives an additional $3200 per year. Examples of those special skills are parachute instructing and fuel specialization. If one develops capability in a foreign language, there is an additional $6000 per year. For hardship posts, there's $1200 per year. For locations of poor living conditions, there is $2400 per year.
If the military person prefers to live off-base with wife and children, he or she receives a separate food and housing allowance of $16,600.
All in all, it doesn't sound too bad to me, but you be the judge.
Rep. Rep. Joe Wilson, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel, including employment issues Senator Gillibrand, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Personnel, including military personnel compensation
Dear Rep. Wilson and Sen. Gillibrand,
The Washington Times has an article entitled, "Troops Forced to Rely on Welfare, Holiday Charity". The essence of the article is that military personnel are grossly underpaid, and must rely on food stamps and other welfare benefits in order to subsist. Numerous cases of individual hardship are included in the article.
It is not my intention here to minimize the contribution of our military personnel in the defense of our freedoms, whatever still exist. However, I would like to put military pay in perspective, so that you may judge for yourself whether there is some significant inequality, in comparison with our general public economics.
There is a significant article on the subject in http://learninginlife.hubpages.com/hub/Is-it-Worth-it-to-Join-the-Army-A-Review-of-Army-Pay, and I encourage you to read it. However, I will use a few of those statistics to support my belief that military personnel are not underpaid.
The base military pay of a military recruit directly out of high school and with no significant specialties is $18,000 per year. He or she also has free food and housing. It is said that the free food is worth $4200 per year and the housing $4800 per year. For ease of comparison, let's just consider the new recruit is receiving $22,800 per year, including food, plus free housing.
The fast food system, such as McDonald's and Burger King, have starting salaries geared to employees directly out of high school and with no significant specialties at a minimum wage of $7.90 per hour. At 40 hours per week, this is equivalent to $16,400 per year. It is my understanding that most fast food companies allow their employees free food. If we use the military food allowance of $4200 per year, this brings the total to $20,600 per year for the lowest grade McDonald's employee. This is $2200 below that for the lowest grade military employee on the same benefits.
Some may be interested in the housing aspect. Lowest grade military employees get free housing, which is considered worth $4800 per year. Under the best conditions, the lowest grade fast food employee is likely to live with his or her parents at no cost, except it is also considered worth $4800 per year.
Some may go on to say that fast food employees are underpaid, but I don't want to address that aspect. I am only trying to make a comparison of military pay with fast food pay under present realistic conditions.
Some may also say that at a starting level, fast food employees can't live on $20,600 per year, but they do, which is why they accept those jobs.
Some also may say that a military recruit, with a nonworking spouse and children, cannot live on $22,800 per year plus housing at $4800, for a total of $27,600 per year. True, but let's remember that the lowest pay scale is geared to young people just out of high school and presumably smart enough to not yet have started a family.
Therefore, we have to look at development. As young people age, they are more likely to develop families, which increases their expenses. At the same time, they also have an opportunity to improve their salaries by increasing their skills. This can be done by developing special skills which gives an additional $3200 per year. Examples of those special skills are parachute instructing and fuel specialization. If one develops capability in a foreign language, there is an additional $6000 per year. For hardship posts, there's $1200 per year. For locations of poor living conditions, there is $2400 per year.
If the military person prefers to live off-base with wife and children, he or she receives a separate food and housing allowance of $16,600.
All in all, it doesn't sound too bad to me, but you be the judge.
Military Pay II
Dear Richard,
I apologize for striking a nerve!
For those who may not recall my previous essay on military pay, Richard is referring to the fact that I compared the pay and benefits of 18-year-old military inductees having only a high school degree and no skills with those same persons entering fast food employment. I concluded that military benefits were somewhat better.
Richard then asked, "From the perspective of an ex-combat infantryman: would you put your life on the line, day after day, under sub-human living conditions, for $1,200-$3,600/year?" My reply is, "No!"
This then leads me to my second apology which is that I apparently did not adequately explain the basis of the original Washington Times article on which I was commenting, and why I had chosen comparison of military employment with fast food employment for 18-year-old high school graduates.
The Washington Times article was replete with complaints from military personnel about being generally underpaid. In no case were they making the point that their pay should be higher because of the hazardous nature of their work.
If we go back to Richards question, we really should look at it in the context of current conditions, which is a volunteer army, as opposed to say World War II where combat infantrymen were draftees, not having a choice of whether they were combat infantrymen are not. Present new inductees into the military volunteer for that particular line of work, when they also had an opportunity to volunteer for fast food work. There are various reasons why an 18-year-old would choose one over the other, and we can not go into all of those now. The facts are that young people do volunteer for military duty and in doing so have somewhat better financial incentives than if they volunteered for fast food work.
However, we cannot ignore the difference in hazard between the two types of work. While much of military activity involves nonhazardous duty, there is always the potential of being assigned to hazardous operations, which is not the case for fast food work.
If the implication is made that hazardous work should pay better than nonhazardous work, I agree completely. If a young person is given adequate training and then assigned to active duty as a combat infantrymen in a "war zone", I believe he should be given combat pay. In addition, since many segments of the military could at any time be called to actual combat, I also believe that they should be given readiness pay.
Some may still find my position objectionable, but at least I believe I have now better described the situation.
I apologize for striking a nerve!
For those who may not recall my previous essay on military pay, Richard is referring to the fact that I compared the pay and benefits of 18-year-old military inductees having only a high school degree and no skills with those same persons entering fast food employment. I concluded that military benefits were somewhat better.
Richard then asked, "From the perspective of an ex-combat infantryman: would you put your life on the line, day after day, under sub-human living conditions, for $1,200-$3,600/year?" My reply is, "No!"
This then leads me to my second apology which is that I apparently did not adequately explain the basis of the original Washington Times article on which I was commenting, and why I had chosen comparison of military employment with fast food employment for 18-year-old high school graduates.
The Washington Times article was replete with complaints from military personnel about being generally underpaid. In no case were they making the point that their pay should be higher because of the hazardous nature of their work.
If we go back to Richards question, we really should look at it in the context of current conditions, which is a volunteer army, as opposed to say World War II where combat infantrymen were draftees, not having a choice of whether they were combat infantrymen are not. Present new inductees into the military volunteer for that particular line of work, when they also had an opportunity to volunteer for fast food work. There are various reasons why an 18-year-old would choose one over the other, and we can not go into all of those now. The facts are that young people do volunteer for military duty and in doing so have somewhat better financial incentives than if they volunteered for fast food work.
However, we cannot ignore the difference in hazard between the two types of work. While much of military activity involves nonhazardous duty, there is always the potential of being assigned to hazardous operations, which is not the case for fast food work.
If the implication is made that hazardous work should pay better than nonhazardous work, I agree completely. If a young person is given adequate training and then assigned to active duty as a combat infantrymen in a "war zone", I believe he should be given combat pay. In addition, since many segments of the military could at any time be called to actual combat, I also believe that they should be given readiness pay.
Some may still find my position objectionable, but at least I believe I have now better described the situation.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Controlling Terrorists
Open email to:
Charles Hagel, Secretary of Defense
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of Select Committee on Intelligence Rep Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
Dear Sec. Hagel and Chairmen Feinstein and Rogers,
The Washington Times has an article concerning a congressional debate over whether Pres. Obama has understated the threat of foreign terrorists to US citizens. I am not concerned here with whether or not Pres. Obama has understated the case. I am concerned with the mention of terrorist "safe havens" in the article.
The US State Department describes terrorist safe havensn as ungoverned, under-governed, or ill-governed physical areas where terrorists are able to organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, transit, and operate in relative security because of inadequate governance capacity, political will, or both. It lists current safe havens as existing in Somalia, Algeria, Libya, Niger, Mauritania, Mali, Sulawesi Sea (SE Asia), The Sulu Archipelago, Mindanao (Philippines), Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay,
We have a satellite surveillance system, such that we should be able to locate physical areas of terrorist concentration, wherein they are carrying out the activities mentioned above.
When the areas of terrorist concentration are located, the US State Department should advise the official government in charge that we will be attacking terrorist forces within their territory, which should not be interpreted as an act of war. This has a disadvantage of also notifying the terrorist groups, so that they may disperse. However, when we make the statement of "non-war" to the controlling government, we should indicate that it will be ongoing. In time the terrorists will re-accumulate, thus giving us an opportunity to strike with attack drones.
Charles Hagel, Secretary of Defense
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of Select Committee on Intelligence Rep Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
Dear Sec. Hagel and Chairmen Feinstein and Rogers,
The Washington Times has an article concerning a congressional debate over whether Pres. Obama has understated the threat of foreign terrorists to US citizens. I am not concerned here with whether or not Pres. Obama has understated the case. I am concerned with the mention of terrorist "safe havens" in the article.
The US State Department describes terrorist safe havensn as ungoverned, under-governed, or ill-governed physical areas where terrorists are able to organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, transit, and operate in relative security because of inadequate governance capacity, political will, or both. It lists current safe havens as existing in Somalia, Algeria, Libya, Niger, Mauritania, Mali, Sulawesi Sea (SE Asia), The Sulu Archipelago, Mindanao (Philippines), Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay,
We have a satellite surveillance system, such that we should be able to locate physical areas of terrorist concentration, wherein they are carrying out the activities mentioned above.
When the areas of terrorist concentration are located, the US State Department should advise the official government in charge that we will be attacking terrorist forces within their territory, which should not be interpreted as an act of war. This has a disadvantage of also notifying the terrorist groups, so that they may disperse. However, when we make the statement of "non-war" to the controlling government, we should indicate that it will be ongoing. In time the terrorists will re-accumulate, thus giving us an opportunity to strike with attack drones.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Use of Attack Drones
Open email to Rep. Martha Roby, Chairman House Military Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Sen. Hagan, Chairman Senate Military Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Dear Rep. Roby and Sen. Hagan,
There is controversy on the use of attack drones to find and eliminate Al Qaeda terrorists on foreign soil. The controversy lies not in the killing of terrorists, but in so-called collateral damage, which is the incidental killing of claimed innocent civilians. Human rights groups have been pressuring the Obama Administration and presumably Congress to reduce or better control attack drones, as reported by the Washington Times.
The U.S. Air Force, which controls the attack drone program says it is merely trying to do its job in the best way possible. However, it is being limited not only by the human rights groups lobbying, but also by Pres. Obama, who said, "Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set.”
By his statement, it is apparent that Pres. Obama has no understanding of war. This is an extremely dangerous situation in a President who is also Commander-In-Chief of all armed forces. It Is also apparent that human rights groups, in the context of their position on the drone situation, also did not understand war. I'm afraid that there may be many similar others in the normal population.
The facts of war are that the Armed Forces of any country will not be able to engage in war, if there is no support within the civilian population of that same country. That support usually comes from supplying their armed services with food and other supplies, with which to conduct the war operation. Without that civilian support, the Armed Services are unable to operate effectively.
During World War II, the US clearly understood this connection. It reduced Germany to rubble through saturation bombing, which not only destroyed war goods producing factories, but the civilians who worked there as well. When we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan it was well known that civilians supporting the war effort would also be killed.
During World War II, the United States was at war with specific national entities; namely Germany and Japan. At present, we have a war going on with radical Muslim terrorists, which are organizations not specific to any specific national boundaries. Therefore, we must adapt to the new requirements of control. That is, to search out and find members of those organizations, in whatever country they may be. In most cases, the terrorist groups are well aware of our self-imposed limitations, such as Pres. Obama elucidated above. Simply put, terrorists hide under civilian skirts. In most cases, the hiding is done with the agreement of the hider. When a residence owner, who is also a civilian hides a terrorist, the owner is complicit in the terrorists activities and should be considered as much of an enemy as the terrorist himself. More simply, Pres. Obama's statement that no civilians will be killed or injured is ridiculous.
If you going to fight a war, you should not do so with one hand tied behind your back, such as the wars in Korea and Vietnam. A war is like a football game. You go out to win and give it the best with all you have. If we do that with our war against terrorists, we will never completely end the war, because of the nature of terrorist ideology and practice. However, we will have considerably better success in protecting US civilians than if we continue with self-imposed limitations.
Dear Rep. Roby and Sen. Hagan,
There is controversy on the use of attack drones to find and eliminate Al Qaeda terrorists on foreign soil. The controversy lies not in the killing of terrorists, but in so-called collateral damage, which is the incidental killing of claimed innocent civilians. Human rights groups have been pressuring the Obama Administration and presumably Congress to reduce or better control attack drones, as reported by the Washington Times.
The U.S. Air Force, which controls the attack drone program says it is merely trying to do its job in the best way possible. However, it is being limited not only by the human rights groups lobbying, but also by Pres. Obama, who said, "Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set.”
By his statement, it is apparent that Pres. Obama has no understanding of war. This is an extremely dangerous situation in a President who is also Commander-In-Chief of all armed forces. It Is also apparent that human rights groups, in the context of their position on the drone situation, also did not understand war. I'm afraid that there may be many similar others in the normal population.
The facts of war are that the Armed Forces of any country will not be able to engage in war, if there is no support within the civilian population of that same country. That support usually comes from supplying their armed services with food and other supplies, with which to conduct the war operation. Without that civilian support, the Armed Services are unable to operate effectively.
During World War II, the US clearly understood this connection. It reduced Germany to rubble through saturation bombing, which not only destroyed war goods producing factories, but the civilians who worked there as well. When we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan it was well known that civilians supporting the war effort would also be killed.
During World War II, the United States was at war with specific national entities; namely Germany and Japan. At present, we have a war going on with radical Muslim terrorists, which are organizations not specific to any specific national boundaries. Therefore, we must adapt to the new requirements of control. That is, to search out and find members of those organizations, in whatever country they may be. In most cases, the terrorist groups are well aware of our self-imposed limitations, such as Pres. Obama elucidated above. Simply put, terrorists hide under civilian skirts. In most cases, the hiding is done with the agreement of the hider. When a residence owner, who is also a civilian hides a terrorist, the owner is complicit in the terrorists activities and should be considered as much of an enemy as the terrorist himself. More simply, Pres. Obama's statement that no civilians will be killed or injured is ridiculous.
If you going to fight a war, you should not do so with one hand tied behind your back, such as the wars in Korea and Vietnam. A war is like a football game. You go out to win and give it the best with all you have. If we do that with our war against terrorists, we will never completely end the war, because of the nature of terrorist ideology and practice. However, we will have considerably better success in protecting US civilians than if we continue with self-imposed limitations.
The President's Executive Orders
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
Pres. Obama has used several Executive Orders on situations which should have been more properly addressed by Congress. The Washington Times now reports that a number of congressional Democrats are pressing Pres. Obama to further extend use of Executive Orders, effectively bypassing Congress.
I call to your attention that in the late 30s the German Reichstag, which is equivalent to the U.S. Congress, faced a similar situation. After Hitler's appointment as Chancellor of the Nation, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act which allowed Hitler's cabinet to promulgate laws by decree. In effect, the Reichstag put itself out of business.
Would you like to do the same and perhaps set us up for World War III or Redistribution of Wealth, so that we become a third world country? If not, you might want to start challenging his Executive Orders now.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
Pres. Obama has used several Executive Orders on situations which should have been more properly addressed by Congress. The Washington Times now reports that a number of congressional Democrats are pressing Pres. Obama to further extend use of Executive Orders, effectively bypassing Congress.
I call to your attention that in the late 30s the German Reichstag, which is equivalent to the U.S. Congress, faced a similar situation. After Hitler's appointment as Chancellor of the Nation, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act which allowed Hitler's cabinet to promulgate laws by decree. In effect, the Reichstag put itself out of business.
Would you like to do the same and perhaps set us up for World War III or Redistribution of Wealth, so that we become a third world country? If not, you might want to start challenging his Executive Orders now.
Sen. Cruz (TX) on School Patriotism and Iranian Captive
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on immigration reform.
You say we are a proud nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws.
All that is fine in the theoretical. The fact remains that Democrats are using the immigration system to retain power. The thought is that immigrants crossing the southern border will in many cases have an opportunity to vote and it will usually be Democratic. Therefore, we will continue to have resistance in the Democratic Party to actually enforce current immigration laws, which had been effective for many years, but more recently not enforced.
The existence of the present immigration laws for some years and the non-enforcement thereof has led to several thousand potential Democrat votes and the Democrat Party is not about to give that up.
The only option I can see is to impeach the President for not enforcing the law, as he is required by the Constitution. However, you are not likely to get anywhere with that either, because of the high preponderance of Democrats in the Congress.
You can continue to fight for "immigration reform", but I don't think you will get anywhere, until there is a dominant Republican position in the Congress.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on immigration reform.
You say we are a proud nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws.
All that is fine in the theoretical. The fact remains that Democrats are using the immigration system to retain power. The thought is that immigrants crossing the southern border will in many cases have an opportunity to vote and it will usually be Democratic. Therefore, we will continue to have resistance in the Democratic Party to actually enforce current immigration laws, which had been effective for many years, but more recently not enforced.
The existence of the present immigration laws for some years and the non-enforcement thereof has led to several thousand potential Democrat votes and the Democrat Party is not about to give that up.
The only option I can see is to impeach the President for not enforcing the law, as he is required by the Constitution. However, you are not likely to get anywhere with that either, because of the high preponderance of Democrats in the Congress.
You can continue to fight for "immigration reform", but I don't think you will get anywhere, until there is a dominant Republican position in the Congress.
Immigration Reform
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on immigration reform.
You say we are a proud nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws.
All that is fine in the theoretical. The fact remains that Democrats are using the immigration system to retain power. The thought is that immigrants crossing the southern border will in many cases have an opportunity to vote and it will usually be Democratic. Therefore, we will continue to have resistance in the Democratic Party to actually enforce current immigration laws, which had been effective for many years, but more recently not enforced.
The existence of the present immigration laws for some years and the non-enforcement thereof has led to several thousand potential Democrat votes and the Democrat Party is not about to give that up.
The only option I can see is to impeach the President for not enforcing the law, as he is required by the Constitution. However, you are not likely to get anywhere with that either, because of the high preponderance of Democrats in the Congress.
You can continue to fight for "immigration reform", but I don't think you will get anywhere, until there is a dominant Republican position in the Congress.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on immigration reform.
You say we are a proud nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws.
All that is fine in the theoretical. The fact remains that Democrats are using the immigration system to retain power. The thought is that immigrants crossing the southern border will in many cases have an opportunity to vote and it will usually be Democratic. Therefore, we will continue to have resistance in the Democratic Party to actually enforce current immigration laws, which had been effective for many years, but more recently not enforced.
The existence of the present immigration laws for some years and the non-enforcement thereof has led to several thousand potential Democrat votes and the Democrat Party is not about to give that up.
The only option I can see is to impeach the President for not enforcing the law, as he is required by the Constitution. However, you are not likely to get anywhere with that either, because of the high preponderance of Democrats in the Congress.
You can continue to fight for "immigration reform", but I don't think you will get anywhere, until there is a dominant Republican position in the Congress.
Healthcare Debate
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the healthcare debate.
You have gone to some length to describe the unworkability of the poorly designed healthcare law known as Obamacare, and pointed out your efforts to defund it, including your filibuster on the floor of the Senate.
You say that you will fight for a fresh start for healthcare reform, designed to meet the needs of the American people.
It is at this last point where I have strong disagreement. The federal government should not be in the healthcare insurance business nor applying controls to insurance companies, other than standard requirements of reasonable integrity.
The discussion is not really on availability of healthcare. It is only on the availability of healthcare insurance. However, there is also no question that as government becomes involved in healthcare insurance, it also affects the quality of healthcare.
Healthcare itself is a maintenance program for continuing life. This is similar to a maintenance program for continued operation of your automobile, or a maintenance program on your home. All of these expenses should be a part of the family budget. The only aspect that needs consideration for insurance is a catastrophe.
Examples of catastrophes are totaling a motor vehicle, your house burning down, being sued for a million dollars, or having to undergo extensive treatment for cancer or similar disease. Those catastrophes can be covered by insurance, which require payment of premiums. An alternative is to personally assume the risk. That is, if a catastrophe occurs without insurance, we will bear the consequences or hope that someone else will pay for it. In any case, it should not be up to government to decide whether an individual be required to carry catastrophe insurance or any other form of insurance.
Therefore, it is ridiculous to consider life maintenance items, such as pregnancy pills, as requiring insurance. There may be some people who can't afford even those simple costs, but that is then a matter of welfare and can be handled as such. Catastrophes can be handled on the same basis. For those who are unable to afford premiums for catastrophic insurance, we can handle that in a minimal way with welfare. There should also be a stigma to welfare, such that those people who receive it are encouraged to get off it by finding some work which will give them enough compensation to pay for their necessities, including health care.
Federal Budget and Government Spending
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the federal budget and government spending.
You say that both political parties have been addicted to irresponsible and immoral spending and the federal government. This crowds out private investment, slows economic growth, and burdens future generations with the bill.
You say that Congress should pass real reforms that limit government spending and pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that will force Washington to live within its means.
You willI continue opposing debt limit increases that do nothing but feed Washington's addiction, and you will continue working with willing partners to fundamentally reduce the size of the federal government.
Amen!
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the federal budget and government spending.
You say that both political parties have been addicted to irresponsible and immoral spending and the federal government. This crowds out private investment, slows economic growth, and burdens future generations with the bill.
You say that Congress should pass real reforms that limit government spending and pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that will force Washington to live within its means.
You willI continue opposing debt limit increases that do nothing but feed Washington's addiction, and you will continue working with willing partners to fundamentally reduce the size of the federal government.
Amen!
House Job Bills Stalled by the Senate
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
I have read your weekly newsletter.
It Is always a surprise to me as the news media reports a public low opinion of Congress, apparently for having done little or nothing. I don't find that true, but even if it were, it would be a great advantage. We need less government, not increasing regulations and mandates limiting the liberties of citizens. The only general area where I would like to see a significant increase in the activity of Congress would be in the repeal of laws and regulations.
With that said, we can go on to your report, which indicates there have been dozens of House passed job bills, but they go nowhere because of a Democrat controlled Senate, with a "do nothing except redistribute wealth" attitude. I saw a few other posted comments concerning your weekly report. Most of these comments are from persons who seem unable to connect your bills to increasing jobs. Instead, they concentrate on the bills making more profits for so-called "fatcats". Somehow the Democrats/Socialists seem to be unable to grasp the fact that jobs are created by fatcats, not by government. If fatcats don't see a profit incentive, they will not move, and there will be no new jobs.
Speaker Boehner, I am sure that you are well aware of how all of your indicated House-passed bills related to jobs, but for those persons who need further description, I will go on to be more specific in explanation of a few.
Keystone Pipeline - It would take people to build the pipeline, if the socialistic Administration ever gets around to approving the project. That's design and construction jobs. When the pipeline would be running, we would have lower energy costs. People would be spending less of their income on gasoline to operate their motor vehicles, heat their houses, and electricity. This makes more money in the pocket to spend on other things, which need to be produced, distributed, and sold, all of which involve new jobs.
Rollback Redtape and Unnecessary Regulations - This is all-encompassing. Every piece of redtape which causes a delay in profitable operation of any business, decreases the efficiency of the business and discourages small business owners, of which there are many, from expanding their operations and hiring new people. In some cases, small business owners find the redtape limitation so restrictive that they decide to go out of business, which gives more unemployment. Unnecessary regulations do the same thing., But let's take a particular case in point. The Environmental Protection Agency is limiting production of carbon dioxide from electricity producing power plants. No one has ever shown any relationship between carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and a more destructive climate. In effect, carbon dioxide/climate change is a hoax and any money spent on it is wasted. However, as the EPA applies its unnecessary regulations, the cost of electricity shoots up, and there is less money for consumers to spend on other things; a job killer.
Help schools to Recruit and Keep the Best Teachers - There was a recent report that US students fall in the middle of the worldwide pack on capability, in spite of the fact that we spend more money per student than any country in the world. The strong power of the teacher's union with the support of the federal government makes it impossible to improve teaching capability, which is a job disadvantage. If students were better educated, they would be able to compete more effectively in the world job market. If we fired ineffective teachers, that would not be a loss of jobs. It would be an opportunity for those more capable to take the same employment.
Eliminate Mandates - Mandates on the public require citizens to give up certain of their liberties. A case in point is Obamacare. As a citizen is required to participate in Obamacare, he is being forced by government to pay for benefits to someone else. While theoretically he could have the same benefits, the fact is that in many cases individuals do not require the same benefits. For example, a young single man will never have any requirement for pregnancy treatment. These higher costs to average citizens result in less pocket money and cut the opportunity for increased jobs in the society in the same manner as mentioned above.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
I have read your weekly newsletter.
It Is always a surprise to me as the news media reports a public low opinion of Congress, apparently for having done little or nothing. I don't find that true, but even if it were, it would be a great advantage. We need less government, not increasing regulations and mandates limiting the liberties of citizens. The only general area where I would like to see a significant increase in the activity of Congress would be in the repeal of laws and regulations.
With that said, we can go on to your report, which indicates there have been dozens of House passed job bills, but they go nowhere because of a Democrat controlled Senate, with a "do nothing except redistribute wealth" attitude. I saw a few other posted comments concerning your weekly report. Most of these comments are from persons who seem unable to connect your bills to increasing jobs. Instead, they concentrate on the bills making more profits for so-called "fatcats". Somehow the Democrats/Socialists seem to be unable to grasp the fact that jobs are created by fatcats, not by government. If fatcats don't see a profit incentive, they will not move, and there will be no new jobs.
Speaker Boehner, I am sure that you are well aware of how all of your indicated House-passed bills related to jobs, but for those persons who need further description, I will go on to be more specific in explanation of a few.
Keystone Pipeline - It would take people to build the pipeline, if the socialistic Administration ever gets around to approving the project. That's design and construction jobs. When the pipeline would be running, we would have lower energy costs. People would be spending less of their income on gasoline to operate their motor vehicles, heat their houses, and electricity. This makes more money in the pocket to spend on other things, which need to be produced, distributed, and sold, all of which involve new jobs.
Rollback Redtape and Unnecessary Regulations - This is all-encompassing. Every piece of redtape which causes a delay in profitable operation of any business, decreases the efficiency of the business and discourages small business owners, of which there are many, from expanding their operations and hiring new people. In some cases, small business owners find the redtape limitation so restrictive that they decide to go out of business, which gives more unemployment. Unnecessary regulations do the same thing., But let's take a particular case in point. The Environmental Protection Agency is limiting production of carbon dioxide from electricity producing power plants. No one has ever shown any relationship between carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and a more destructive climate. In effect, carbon dioxide/climate change is a hoax and any money spent on it is wasted. However, as the EPA applies its unnecessary regulations, the cost of electricity shoots up, and there is less money for consumers to spend on other things; a job killer.
Help schools to Recruit and Keep the Best Teachers - There was a recent report that US students fall in the middle of the worldwide pack on capability, in spite of the fact that we spend more money per student than any country in the world. The strong power of the teacher's union with the support of the federal government makes it impossible to improve teaching capability, which is a job disadvantage. If students were better educated, they would be able to compete more effectively in the world job market. If we fired ineffective teachers, that would not be a loss of jobs. It would be an opportunity for those more capable to take the same employment.
Eliminate Mandates - Mandates on the public require citizens to give up certain of their liberties. A case in point is Obamacare. As a citizen is required to participate in Obamacare, he is being forced by government to pay for benefits to someone else. While theoretically he could have the same benefits, the fact is that in many cases individuals do not require the same benefits. For example, a young single man will never have any requirement for pregnancy treatment. These higher costs to average citizens result in less pocket money and cut the opportunity for increased jobs in the society in the same manner as mentioned above.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
healthcare conscience rights
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on healthcare conscience rights.
Obamacare is an example of the United States United States Government forcing citizens and businesses-to follow mandates that violate their religious beliefs or be fined or penalized. Contraception, sterilization and "counseling" related to abortion are part of the religious beliefs and sensibilities of millions of Americans. As the federal government requires citizens and businesses to pay for those items which violate religious conscience, it appears to be a violation of the First Amendment. However, if there are some lack of clarity in that assertion, there is a move to pass a law guaranteeing Healthcare Conscience Rights, which would disallow the federal government from demanding its total citizenry to support religious disbelieves. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases challenging Obamacare's contraception mandate, but it is a matter which is guaranteed by the First Amendment and should not even have come to the Court.
You want to establish a federal Healthcare Conscience Rights Act, and also repeal Obamacare.
I agree with these two objectives.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on healthcare conscience rights.
Obamacare is an example of the United States United States Government forcing citizens and businesses-to follow mandates that violate their religious beliefs or be fined or penalized. Contraception, sterilization and "counseling" related to abortion are part of the religious beliefs and sensibilities of millions of Americans. As the federal government requires citizens and businesses to pay for those items which violate religious conscience, it appears to be a violation of the First Amendment. However, if there are some lack of clarity in that assertion, there is a move to pass a law guaranteeing Healthcare Conscience Rights, which would disallow the federal government from demanding its total citizenry to support religious disbelieves. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases challenging Obamacare's contraception mandate, but it is a matter which is guaranteed by the First Amendment and should not even have come to the Court.
You want to establish a federal Healthcare Conscience Rights Act, and also repeal Obamacare.
I agree with these two objectives.
Gun Control
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on gun control.
President Obama and Democrat lawmakers recently have called for sweeping restrictions on gun ownership.
You say we should not have restrictions on gun ownership. We should implement and enforce laws aimed at preventing gun violence. States should submit relevant mental health records to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This would help prevent firearms from reaching the hands of the mentally ill. Furthermore, we should use every available means to deter and punish mass murderers and violent criminals, prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that every citizen has a right to own a gun and their should be no restrictions against gun ownership and use. This does not mean that the Second Amendment allows a person to use a gun to commit a murder.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow the citizenry to have a last resort in being able to oppose a dictatorial federal government. The Constitution appoints the President as Commander-In-Chief of all military forces. If the President wishes to use the military forces against the citizenry, the Constitution in its "checks and balances" wants the citizenry to be able to retaliate.
The existence of the Second Amendment is a continuing threat to the President, and in the case of Obama, he has used continued efforts to weaken it and eventually dispose of it. Whether he has any intention of using the military against the US citizenry is obviously unknown, but it would be ridiculous for the citizenry to give up its rights of retaliation, which it presently has as a deterrent against complete presidential autocracy.
The Obama administration and associated Democrats have been using miscellaneous excuses, such as school shootings, and theator violence, as reasons to control and perhaps eliminate the Second Amendment. The citizenry must not be deceived by this subterfuge. It must keep its eye on the ball to the extent that it needs to retain firepower to use against the federal government if necessary.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on gun control.
President Obama and Democrat lawmakers recently have called for sweeping restrictions on gun ownership.
You say we should not have restrictions on gun ownership. We should implement and enforce laws aimed at preventing gun violence. States should submit relevant mental health records to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This would help prevent firearms from reaching the hands of the mentally ill. Furthermore, we should use every available means to deter and punish mass murderers and violent criminals, prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that every citizen has a right to own a gun and their should be no restrictions against gun ownership and use. This does not mean that the Second Amendment allows a person to use a gun to commit a murder.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow the citizenry to have a last resort in being able to oppose a dictatorial federal government. The Constitution appoints the President as Commander-In-Chief of all military forces. If the President wishes to use the military forces against the citizenry, the Constitution in its "checks and balances" wants the citizenry to be able to retaliate.
The existence of the Second Amendment is a continuing threat to the President, and in the case of Obama, he has used continued efforts to weaken it and eventually dispose of it. Whether he has any intention of using the military against the US citizenry is obviously unknown, but it would be ridiculous for the citizenry to give up its rights of retaliation, which it presently has as a deterrent against complete presidential autocracy.
The Obama administration and associated Democrats have been using miscellaneous excuses, such as school shootings, and theator violence, as reasons to control and perhaps eliminate the Second Amendment. The citizenry must not be deceived by this subterfuge. It must keep its eye on the ball to the extent that it needs to retain firepower to use against the federal government if necessary.
US Energy Policy
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on US energy policy.
You are concerned that the Senate recently considered a bill introduced by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman, which proposed to advance energy efficiency through increased government intervention and subsidies. You say that greater government involvement only risks corporate cronyism, wasteful spending, and weaker economic growth. Instead, we should be reducing, not expanding, federal interference in the energy sector.
While I agree with what you say, it does not really address the matter of US Energy Policy, which should be to promote obtaining economic sources of energy and using such energy in a reasonable environmental manner.
Congresses previously tried to address this problem with the setting up of a Department of Energy. It was presumably done on the presumption that its control by the President would be advantageous to the development of economic energy sources. Instead, this has backfired, and the Energy Department does more to inhibit availability of economic energy. In addition, it wastes a tremendous amount of money on the development of uneconomic sources. On that basis, I have previously suggested elimination of the Department of Energy and stricter controls on the Environmental Protection Agency.
I still continue with those two suggestions and add that as Congress passes additional laws, which puts the President in charge of operations, it should not assume that the president will conduct those operations in a manner consistent with Congress' original intentions.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on US energy policy.
You are concerned that the Senate recently considered a bill introduced by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman, which proposed to advance energy efficiency through increased government intervention and subsidies. You say that greater government involvement only risks corporate cronyism, wasteful spending, and weaker economic growth. Instead, we should be reducing, not expanding, federal interference in the energy sector.
While I agree with what you say, it does not really address the matter of US Energy Policy, which should be to promote obtaining economic sources of energy and using such energy in a reasonable environmental manner.
Congresses previously tried to address this problem with the setting up of a Department of Energy. It was presumably done on the presumption that its control by the President would be advantageous to the development of economic energy sources. Instead, this has backfired, and the Energy Department does more to inhibit availability of economic energy. In addition, it wastes a tremendous amount of money on the development of uneconomic sources. On that basis, I have previously suggested elimination of the Department of Energy and stricter controls on the Environmental Protection Agency.
I still continue with those two suggestions and add that as Congress passes additional laws, which puts the President in charge of operations, it should not assume that the president will conduct those operations in a manner consistent with Congress' original intentions.
Internal Revenue Service
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the abuses of the Internal Revenue Service.
You are concerned that the IRS has apparently shown political favoritism by making it more difficult for some possibly conservative organizations to obtain tax-free status as charity organizations.
You have suggested that you scrap the current tax code and abolish the IRS. Meanwhile, you must uncover the full extent of abuse and hold accountable those who have violated our sacred liberties
The IRS is a Bureau of the Treasury Department, with the Treasury Secretary reporting to Pres. Obama. Therefore, Pres. Obama controls the IRS. If the President, gives orders to the Treasury Secretary, to pass to the IRS Bureau Commissioner, that IRS operations must show tax-free status only to those organizations which show a liberal bias, the IRS is obligated to do so. Therefore, your argument is really with Pres. Obama. I also don't see anything illegal about Pres. Obama and the IRS operating in this manner. Similarly, I don't see that "those accountable have violated our sacred liberties". They are merely operating under the guidance of the President, which does not seem to be illegal.
While I agree completely with your apparent position that tax collection should not have a significant political aspect to it, it already does so in its gradation of tax rates such that the "rich" are soaked and the "underprivileged" actually receive payments.
I agree that we should scrap the current tax code, to eliminate redistribution of wealth, which it now encompasses. Conversely, we do need a tax collection agency. Call it an IRS or anything else you wish.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the abuses of the Internal Revenue Service.
You are concerned that the IRS has apparently shown political favoritism by making it more difficult for some possibly conservative organizations to obtain tax-free status as charity organizations.
You have suggested that you scrap the current tax code and abolish the IRS. Meanwhile, you must uncover the full extent of abuse and hold accountable those who have violated our sacred liberties
The IRS is a Bureau of the Treasury Department, with the Treasury Secretary reporting to Pres. Obama. Therefore, Pres. Obama controls the IRS. If the President, gives orders to the Treasury Secretary, to pass to the IRS Bureau Commissioner, that IRS operations must show tax-free status only to those organizations which show a liberal bias, the IRS is obligated to do so. Therefore, your argument is really with Pres. Obama. I also don't see anything illegal about Pres. Obama and the IRS operating in this manner. Similarly, I don't see that "those accountable have violated our sacred liberties". They are merely operating under the guidance of the President, which does not seem to be illegal.
While I agree completely with your apparent position that tax collection should not have a significant political aspect to it, it already does so in its gradation of tax rates such that the "rich" are soaked and the "underprivileged" actually receive payments.
I agree that we should scrap the current tax code, to eliminate redistribution of wealth, which it now encompasses. Conversely, we do need a tax collection agency. Call it an IRS or anything else you wish.
Keystone Oil Pipeline
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada.
You are for construction of the pipeline and have been part of Senate legislation that would overturn the President's inexplicable decision to prevent this critical, job-creating project from moving forward.
Congratulations! You're on the right track, but abysmally late and essentially ineffective in doing anything about it.
It is ridiculous to me that the President of the United States should be allowed a position to hold up a private enterprise for years, which would be obviously good for the economy of the US.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada.
You are for construction of the pipeline and have been part of Senate legislation that would overturn the President's inexplicable decision to prevent this critical, job-creating project from moving forward.
Congratulations! You're on the right track, but abysmally late and essentially ineffective in doing anything about it.
It is ridiculous to me that the President of the United States should be allowed a position to hold up a private enterprise for years, which would be obviously good for the economy of the US.
Syria
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on Syria.
You make no specific recommendations of what the US should be doing on Syria, but sure you show a strong emotional partiality to being somehow involved.
Let me remind you that the conflict in Syria is a civil war, in which the US has no direct interest. There is a likelihood that its outcome might be an increase in radical Muslim activity, which is potentially dangerous to the US. However, I have previously written on how to control terrorism, and it does not have involve US ground troops or buying our way into a position about which we really have no knowledge.
I strongly suggest that you give Syria your minimal or no attention.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on Syria.
You make no specific recommendations of what the US should be doing on Syria, but sure you show a strong emotional partiality to being somehow involved.
Let me remind you that the conflict in Syria is a civil war, in which the US has no direct interest. There is a likelihood that its outcome might be an increase in radical Muslim activity, which is potentially dangerous to the US. However, I have previously written on how to control terrorism, and it does not have involve US ground troops or buying our way into a position about which we really have no knowledge.
I strongly suggest that you give Syria your minimal or no attention.
Top Government Issues
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on top government issues, which need your attention.
You said that your top priorities in the U.S. Senate are to dramatically cut spending, reduce burdensome federal regulations, and reform our tax system.
I agree with those priorities completely. If you accomplish those, most of the present controversies will fall into their proper perspective. However. I think the key element on which to concentrate is to combat socialistic proposals and laws wherever they appear. A prime example is Obamacare, which perhaps singly can take this country down the road to destruction.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on top government issues, which need your attention.
You said that your top priorities in the U.S. Senate are to dramatically cut spending, reduce burdensome federal regulations, and reform our tax system.
I agree with those priorities completely. If you accomplish those, most of the present controversies will fall into their proper perspective. However. I think the key element on which to concentrate is to combat socialistic proposals and laws wherever they appear. A prime example is Obamacare, which perhaps singly can take this country down the road to destruction.
United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
You say that US participation in the UN Arms Trade Treaty would essentially eliminate US citizens from bearing arms, which is now provided to citizens by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. You voted for Senate legislation prohibiting the US from entering into the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
Congratulations! Please follow up to see that the US does not become a part of that UN Treaty.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
You say that US participation in the UN Arms Trade Treaty would essentially eliminate US citizens from bearing arms, which is now provided to citizens by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. You voted for Senate legislation prohibiting the US from entering into the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
Congratulations! Please follow up to see that the US does not become a part of that UN Treaty.
Sen. Cruz (TX) on Social Security
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
You say that Social Security payments by citizens are dumped into a general government fund and spent by Congress. You say that should stop, with Social Security funds being collected in a separate account for use only for Social Security purposes. You also say some portion of the contributed funds from each individual should be allowed back to him for private investment.
I absolutely agree with the first part, but have some reservation with the second part. If the portion allowed for private investment is no greater than 50% of the total, I agree.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
You say that Social Security payments by citizens are dumped into a general government fund and spent by Congress. You say that should stop, with Social Security funds being collected in a separate account for use only for Social Security purposes. You also say some portion of the contributed funds from each individual should be allowed back to him for private investment.
I absolutely agree with the first part, but have some reservation with the second part. If the portion allowed for private investment is no greater than 50% of the total, I agree.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Hooray for the Sequester!
Open E-mail to Lamar S Smith (TX), Chairman House Science, Space, & Technology
Committee
Dear Chairman
Smith,
Good news!
Surveys by three organizations show that university research programs have been adversely affected by federal budget sequestration. The sequestration which took effect on March 1, will last for 10 years.
Some may regard this as an adverse effect on university research programs. Under normal conditions, that would be correct. However in this case, the various agencies of the Obama Administration have been giving billions of dollars in grants to universities for conducting "Propaganda Research", in order to push Federal Administration ideology. More simply, the research which has been financed by taxpayers is not true scientific research, which normally would lead to greater insight into scientific matters. It has been only a promotional program.
70% of the universities have had their research projects delayed and have also received fewer research grants. That's good. We should not be giving universities money to conduct false research.
30% of the universities have been forced to reduce their undergraduate research programs. That's not as good news. Undergraduate research usually accomplishes nothing with respect to advancing the art of science, but it does serve as a training mechanism, wherein students gain some initial practice in how to conduct research and prepare them to achieve accomplishments as graduate students or postdocs. However, chances are that the previous undergraduate research projects were of the propaganda type, and therefore deceptive from a science teaching point of view.
16% of the universities have laid off permanent staff. It's not so good, because it increases unemployment. However, chances are that the universities were overstaffed in the first place, which is why tuition costs are been increasing by leaps and bounds. In addition, those people now out of work will probably be rehired as private industry starts to recognize that they now have to compete less with big government dollars, in order to obtain a foothold in the practical academic research field.
Bottom line. The sequestration is bringing scientific research in universities back into a practical basis by reducing university involvement in government propaganda work. However, we are still dumping billions of dollars of taxpayer money into these propaganda programs, and it is past time to cut it even further.
Surveys by three organizations show that university research programs have been adversely affected by federal budget sequestration. The sequestration which took effect on March 1, will last for 10 years.
Some may regard this as an adverse effect on university research programs. Under normal conditions, that would be correct. However in this case, the various agencies of the Obama Administration have been giving billions of dollars in grants to universities for conducting "Propaganda Research", in order to push Federal Administration ideology. More simply, the research which has been financed by taxpayers is not true scientific research, which normally would lead to greater insight into scientific matters. It has been only a promotional program.
70% of the universities have had their research projects delayed and have also received fewer research grants. That's good. We should not be giving universities money to conduct false research.
30% of the universities have been forced to reduce their undergraduate research programs. That's not as good news. Undergraduate research usually accomplishes nothing with respect to advancing the art of science, but it does serve as a training mechanism, wherein students gain some initial practice in how to conduct research and prepare them to achieve accomplishments as graduate students or postdocs. However, chances are that the previous undergraduate research projects were of the propaganda type, and therefore deceptive from a science teaching point of view.
16% of the universities have laid off permanent staff. It's not so good, because it increases unemployment. However, chances are that the universities were overstaffed in the first place, which is why tuition costs are been increasing by leaps and bounds. In addition, those people now out of work will probably be rehired as private industry starts to recognize that they now have to compete less with big government dollars, in order to obtain a foothold in the practical academic research field.
Bottom line. The sequestration is bringing scientific research in universities back into a practical basis by reducing university involvement in government propaganda work. However, we are still dumping billions of dollars of taxpayer money into these propaganda programs, and it is past time to cut it even further.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Cost of Government Shutdown
pen Email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
We had a 16-day partial government shutdown in October promulgated by House Republicans. The reasons for the shutdown are not significant with respect to the context of this message.
The White House and various other sources have said that the shutdown furloughed federal employees for a collective 6.6 man million workdays lost at a cost of $2.5 billion. An additional 100,000 contract employees were also out of work during that period.
Notice that the claim of the Democrats is that the shutdown caused by Republicans has cost at least $2.5 billion and other sources have placed that cost at $24 billion, through a government readjustment of gross national product growth. The Republicans apparently have accepted that responsibility and criticism, which makes my blood boil.
I call to your attention that our objective has been to reduce the size of government, save money in the process, and allow market forces with decreased federal restriction to grow the economy and obtain a decrease in unemployment. Simply put, the government is too large and too powerful, and we must cut it back.
In the so-called cost of the 16-day government shutdown, the obtuse use of mathematics has been so flagrant, that it is sickening. While government employees on furlough did not work 6.6 million man-hours, they were later paid. If they had worked the 6.6 million man-hours, they also would have been paid. In other words, they were paid whether they worked or not and the salary budget was unaffected. It is it ridiculous to say that there was a loss of $2.5 billion. I personally would like to have seen them not paid for the work they didn't do, in which case, we could claim a saving of $2.5 billion for the 16-day shutdown.
The problem is that Republicans seem to be equally inept at this simple mathematical problems, or else their propaganda machine is so poor that it is unable to counteract lies by the competition.
However, it is not too late to put this in perspective with the American public. At present, it is likely that the public believes the Republican promulgated shutdown cost the taxpayers at least $2.6 billion, and nothing is further from the truth, as I have shown above. You may want to reanalyze your system of communicating with the public. How the public perceives you will be a key element in the next election. If you want to lose, continue to do what you have been doing and let the White House and Democrats confuse the public with its lies. If you want to win, completely reorganize your propaganda machine so that the public will have a clear understanding of what the facts are and particularly with respect to this issue that the 16 day government shutdown did not cost the taxpayers $2.5 billion and the fact that the government operated quite satisfactorily during the shutdown period without 6.6 million man-hours.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
We had a 16-day partial government shutdown in October promulgated by House Republicans. The reasons for the shutdown are not significant with respect to the context of this message.
The White House and various other sources have said that the shutdown furloughed federal employees for a collective 6.6 man million workdays lost at a cost of $2.5 billion. An additional 100,000 contract employees were also out of work during that period.
Notice that the claim of the Democrats is that the shutdown caused by Republicans has cost at least $2.5 billion and other sources have placed that cost at $24 billion, through a government readjustment of gross national product growth. The Republicans apparently have accepted that responsibility and criticism, which makes my blood boil.
I call to your attention that our objective has been to reduce the size of government, save money in the process, and allow market forces with decreased federal restriction to grow the economy and obtain a decrease in unemployment. Simply put, the government is too large and too powerful, and we must cut it back.
In the so-called cost of the 16-day government shutdown, the obtuse use of mathematics has been so flagrant, that it is sickening. While government employees on furlough did not work 6.6 million man-hours, they were later paid. If they had worked the 6.6 million man-hours, they also would have been paid. In other words, they were paid whether they worked or not and the salary budget was unaffected. It is it ridiculous to say that there was a loss of $2.5 billion. I personally would like to have seen them not paid for the work they didn't do, in which case, we could claim a saving of $2.5 billion for the 16-day shutdown.
The problem is that Republicans seem to be equally inept at this simple mathematical problems, or else their propaganda machine is so poor that it is unable to counteract lies by the competition.
However, it is not too late to put this in perspective with the American public. At present, it is likely that the public believes the Republican promulgated shutdown cost the taxpayers at least $2.6 billion, and nothing is further from the truth, as I have shown above. You may want to reanalyze your system of communicating with the public. How the public perceives you will be a key element in the next election. If you want to lose, continue to do what you have been doing and let the White House and Democrats confuse the public with its lies. If you want to win, completely reorganize your propaganda machine so that the public will have a clear understanding of what the facts are and particularly with respect to this issue that the 16 day government shutdown did not cost the taxpayers $2.5 billion and the fact that the government operated quite satisfactorily during the shutdown period without 6.6 million man-hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
