Open Email to Representative Michael McCaul (TX):
Dear Representative McCaul,
I have read your latest newsletter.
Other than a swearing in ceremony, which is only windowdressing, you cover two points; border security and cyber security.
On border security, the people took the first step some time ago by electing you Representative, which means that you are supposed to take action. Border security is not a new issue. You have been talking about for some time. It is way past the action date. We want you to do something to follow up all your previous talk.
Cyber security is relatively new, especially with the Sony/North Korea case. We can excuse you for only engaging in talk on this relatively new issue. But, down the road, we will expect action from you.
In summary, we want the border closed to illegal immigration, and we want cyber attacks on US companies stopped. Do it.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Chemical Safety Board
Open email to Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Imhofe:
Dear Rep. Issa and Sen. Imhofe,
The September 29 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has an article on the Chemical Safety Board. The title of the article is "Unending Criticism; No let up likely in long-running series of investigations of the Chemical Safety Board"
I've been a member of the American Chemical Society for more than 50 years and during many of those years I have followed with interest the activities of the Chemical Safety Board. I have previously had the highest respect for their work, because it has in the past been professional. The Board has unpolitically investigated chemical accidents and made recommendations on improvements to save lives and reduce losses of equipment.
In reading the C&E News article, it becomes apparent that the professional activity of the CSB has fallen apart.
It is my understanding that the CSB was set up as a separate agency reporting only to Congress. Presumably a Congressional Committee of Congress oversees the Board, setting salaries and establishing responsibilities. This has apparently worked for a great number of years and the Board has been basically immune to the shenanigans of certain presidents, such as Obama, who has been juggling agency agendas, etc. contrary to the original intent and current desires of Congress. But, somehow the CSB has become politicized. This has been done by appointing the wrong people. When the CSB was operating professionally and efficiently, all of its investigating members knew their jobs, which was to investigate chemically related accidents, come to conclusions on what had gone wrong and made recommendations to both Congress and various other agencies within the federal government for improvements to alleviate repetition of such accidents. That took a professional view by each of the CSB members. Namely to do the job and not quibble about who was high on the pecking post within the organization or how any one or more members could obtain additional power by forcing other agencies of the federal government to do its bidding.
I strongly suggest you clean house on the CAB by removing opportunists, which may be the whole CSB, and appointing professional people who firstly have the right attitude and secondly have the experience and capability of doing an appropriate job.
Dear Rep. Issa and Sen. Imhofe,
The September 29 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has an article on the Chemical Safety Board. The title of the article is "Unending Criticism; No let up likely in long-running series of investigations of the Chemical Safety Board"
I've been a member of the American Chemical Society for more than 50 years and during many of those years I have followed with interest the activities of the Chemical Safety Board. I have previously had the highest respect for their work, because it has in the past been professional. The Board has unpolitically investigated chemical accidents and made recommendations on improvements to save lives and reduce losses of equipment.
In reading the C&E News article, it becomes apparent that the professional activity of the CSB has fallen apart.
It is my understanding that the CSB was set up as a separate agency reporting only to Congress. Presumably a Congressional Committee of Congress oversees the Board, setting salaries and establishing responsibilities. This has apparently worked for a great number of years and the Board has been basically immune to the shenanigans of certain presidents, such as Obama, who has been juggling agency agendas, etc. contrary to the original intent and current desires of Congress. But, somehow the CSB has become politicized. This has been done by appointing the wrong people. When the CSB was operating professionally and efficiently, all of its investigating members knew their jobs, which was to investigate chemically related accidents, come to conclusions on what had gone wrong and made recommendations to both Congress and various other agencies within the federal government for improvements to alleviate repetition of such accidents. That took a professional view by each of the CSB members. Namely to do the job and not quibble about who was high on the pecking post within the organization or how any one or more members could obtain additional power by forcing other agencies of the federal government to do its bidding.
I strongly suggest you clean house on the CAB by removing opportunists, which may be the whole CSB, and appointing professional people who firstly have the right attitude and secondly have the experience and capability of doing an appropriate job.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Obama Giveaway
When I was a boy, about 10 years old, the country were in the heart of the Great Depression. It had started with the stock market fall in in '29.
I heard from one of the other kids that the government was giving away free flour. I went to the location the kid told me about with my red wagon and obtained a 24 1/2 pound bag of flour, which I then took home. I proudly presented it to my mother and was surprised and disappointed at her reaction. She said, "we don't accept charity. Take it back".
Times have changed. It appears that the general public no longer believes in pride of personal accomplishment. Current attitude is more like grab it while you can. We are entitled to free stuff. The government is a sucker and won't even bother to check when we fleece it.
This is demonstrated by an announcement by the Washington Times, which recently said, "Obamacare hits 2.5 million enrollees; officials say that doesn’t count ‘extremely busy’ weekend".
Apparently, 2 1/2 million Americans have signed up for free stuff. Well, not exactly free stuff, but at a significant discount to what private insurance companies can offer. Why the low-cost? Simple. Taxpayers bear the brunt of the deficit. What the Obama care enrollee over-draws in benefits compared to what he pays in premiums is picked up by taxpayers. In other words, a redistribution of wealth. It's the same as persons adjusting their income so that when they file their tax returns the IRS pays them rather than charging a tax.
With this decline in moral values, what is the incentive to work? Work is hard. It has special requirements, such as you have to be there on time and do what the boss says. There will come a time when essentially everybody will cave into the acceptance of free stuff without responsibility. At that point, we will be on an accelerated slide to product and service insufficiency, followed by riots and general anarchy as we have seen recently with the Blacks.
I heard from one of the other kids that the government was giving away free flour. I went to the location the kid told me about with my red wagon and obtained a 24 1/2 pound bag of flour, which I then took home. I proudly presented it to my mother and was surprised and disappointed at her reaction. She said, "we don't accept charity. Take it back".
Times have changed. It appears that the general public no longer believes in pride of personal accomplishment. Current attitude is more like grab it while you can. We are entitled to free stuff. The government is a sucker and won't even bother to check when we fleece it.
This is demonstrated by an announcement by the Washington Times, which recently said, "Obamacare hits 2.5 million enrollees; officials say that doesn’t count ‘extremely busy’ weekend".
Apparently, 2 1/2 million Americans have signed up for free stuff. Well, not exactly free stuff, but at a significant discount to what private insurance companies can offer. Why the low-cost? Simple. Taxpayers bear the brunt of the deficit. What the Obama care enrollee over-draws in benefits compared to what he pays in premiums is picked up by taxpayers. In other words, a redistribution of wealth. It's the same as persons adjusting their income so that when they file their tax returns the IRS pays them rather than charging a tax.
With this decline in moral values, what is the incentive to work? Work is hard. It has special requirements, such as you have to be there on time and do what the boss says. There will come a time when essentially everybody will cave into the acceptance of free stuff without responsibility. At that point, we will be on an accelerated slide to product and service insufficiency, followed by riots and general anarchy as we have seen recently with the Blacks.
Russian Submarine Drones
The Washington Times reports, "Cold War comeback: U.S.-Russia locked in high-stakes submarine drone race".
Most people are familiar with the traditional drone, which is basically a small unmanned airplane controlled electronically usually from a ground source. The air drone has the capability of surveillance and attack with explosive weapons.
Presumably, a submarine drone, does the same thing underwater. It is likely controlled from a submarine or possibly other locations.
The key point is that there is likely no high-stakes submarine drone race with the Russians. While the Russians may have been working on a submarine drone, Pres. Reagan previously proved that Russia could be disabled in its militaristic goals by forcing it to overspend on military operations. In the present case, Russian overspending does not come from competitive spending with the US. Instead, we have OPEC to thank for basically driving Russia out of the oil business, which was the major source of their foreign-exchange. With insufficient foreign-exchange, a country cannot purchase items from other countries, such as machine tools from Germany.
Let's not worry about Russian submarine drones. The country is already on the financial ropes.
Most people are familiar with the traditional drone, which is basically a small unmanned airplane controlled electronically usually from a ground source. The air drone has the capability of surveillance and attack with explosive weapons.
Presumably, a submarine drone, does the same thing underwater. It is likely controlled from a submarine or possibly other locations.
The key point is that there is likely no high-stakes submarine drone race with the Russians. While the Russians may have been working on a submarine drone, Pres. Reagan previously proved that Russia could be disabled in its militaristic goals by forcing it to overspend on military operations. In the present case, Russian overspending does not come from competitive spending with the US. Instead, we have OPEC to thank for basically driving Russia out of the oil business, which was the major source of their foreign-exchange. With insufficient foreign-exchange, a country cannot purchase items from other countries, such as machine tools from Germany.
Let's not worry about Russian submarine drones. The country is already on the financial ropes.
Amnesty Unconstitutional
According to the Washington Times, a federal judge has declared Pres. Obama's Executive Order on amnesty as unconstitutional.
Sounds like the system is working, but is it?. The Obama Administration will next follow the standard procedure of appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that decision is not favorable, Obama will carry it to the Supreme Court.
Let's assume that the Circuit Court of Appeals sides with the federal judge and declares Obama's amnesty as unconstitutional. Similarly, let's assume that the Supreme Court comes to the same conclusion. Then what? Nothing. Do you really think it'll Obama is going to change his amnesty program because of what anybody else in the federal system says. I'll bet a hat he will not.
Does that mean we are dead in our tracks on amnesty? Not exactly. The Congress can impeach Pres. Obama and also discharge him from office. Will he go? Not likely. Remember, he is Commander-In-Chief of the military, so that he has force of arms. Will the military support him? Soldiers have been trained to follow orders of generals, including the commander-in-chief.
Maybe it's a good thing that there has been a significant increase in public gun sales. I'd hate to see a civil war to depose a president/dictator, but if necessary to save our country, so be it
Sounds like the system is working, but is it?. The Obama Administration will next follow the standard procedure of appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that decision is not favorable, Obama will carry it to the Supreme Court.
Let's assume that the Circuit Court of Appeals sides with the federal judge and declares Obama's amnesty as unconstitutional. Similarly, let's assume that the Supreme Court comes to the same conclusion. Then what? Nothing. Do you really think it'll Obama is going to change his amnesty program because of what anybody else in the federal system says. I'll bet a hat he will not.
Does that mean we are dead in our tracks on amnesty? Not exactly. The Congress can impeach Pres. Obama and also discharge him from office. Will he go? Not likely. Remember, he is Commander-In-Chief of the military, so that he has force of arms. Will the military support him? Soldiers have been trained to follow orders of generals, including the commander-in-chief.
Maybe it's a good thing that there has been a significant increase in public gun sales. I'd hate to see a civil war to depose a president/dictator, but if necessary to save our country, so be it
"Normalizing" Cuba
Pres. Obama has issued an Executive Order to "normalize" relations with Cuba. As a first step, the State Department will open a US Embassy in Havana.
I remind you that Cuba is under the complete control of Raul Castro, a communist dictator. Cuba is also on the list of countries that support terrorism.
However, this all makes sense. Obama is also a communist dictator, who is doing his best to use dictatorial methods in his present position as President of the United States.
Pres. Obama is an ideological communist and as such has an obligation to his ideology by promoting communism wherever he can. This is essentially the same as Muslims promoting their particular brand of culture.
If you like communism, you will be for this move by Pres. Obama. If you are a social conservative believing in individual opportunity and responsibility, you will be against Obama's move, as equivalent to developing the Borg in Star Trek.
I remind you that Cuba is under the complete control of Raul Castro, a communist dictator. Cuba is also on the list of countries that support terrorism.
However, this all makes sense. Obama is also a communist dictator, who is doing his best to use dictatorial methods in his present position as President of the United States.
Pres. Obama is an ideological communist and as such has an obligation to his ideology by promoting communism wherever he can. This is essentially the same as Muslims promoting their particular brand of culture.
If you like communism, you will be for this move by Pres. Obama. If you are a social conservative believing in individual opportunity and responsibility, you will be against Obama's move, as equivalent to developing the Borg in Star Trek.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Maintaining the Military
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader elect Mitch McConnell:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
The Washington Times says, "Politically motivated budget cuts and a hiring freeze have left the Navy with a shipyard workforce incapable of maintaining even its most valuable hardware, including the fleet of hunter-killer submarines and aircraft carriers that are crucial to projecting U.S. force across the globe".
Whether we like it or not, it is the responsibility of the United States to keep peace around the world through military capability. Decreasing military capability leads to world political unrest, as we have recently seen through the programs of Pres. Obama and military budget cuts through sequestering.
You have recently passed a $1.1 trillion budget, of which a large part was the Defense Bill. Consistent with my previous writings, is now time to review the details of the $1.1 Trillion Bill, not only to take out the pork and other irrelevant expenses, but also to beef up the military, which includes the Navy. If you can't do that now, because Democrats still control Congress, put it on your agenda for one of the first things to do for the new January Congress.
Total expenses are important, and a $1.1 trillion budget is excessive. It must be cut. In order to make the total cut and at the same time increase military budgets, consider those other items I have previously mentioned, such as eliminating the Department of Education and cutting back on grants and other public taxpayer expenditures for universities and healthcare. In simpler terms, cut food stamps and have the previous recipients start work in the shipyards. We did in World War II and we can do it again now.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
The Washington Times says, "Politically motivated budget cuts and a hiring freeze have left the Navy with a shipyard workforce incapable of maintaining even its most valuable hardware, including the fleet of hunter-killer submarines and aircraft carriers that are crucial to projecting U.S. force across the globe".
Whether we like it or not, it is the responsibility of the United States to keep peace around the world through military capability. Decreasing military capability leads to world political unrest, as we have recently seen through the programs of Pres. Obama and military budget cuts through sequestering.
You have recently passed a $1.1 trillion budget, of which a large part was the Defense Bill. Consistent with my previous writings, is now time to review the details of the $1.1 Trillion Bill, not only to take out the pork and other irrelevant expenses, but also to beef up the military, which includes the Navy. If you can't do that now, because Democrats still control Congress, put it on your agenda for one of the first things to do for the new January Congress.
Total expenses are important, and a $1.1 trillion budget is excessive. It must be cut. In order to make the total cut and at the same time increase military budgets, consider those other items I have previously mentioned, such as eliminating the Department of Education and cutting back on grants and other public taxpayer expenditures for universities and healthcare. In simpler terms, cut food stamps and have the previous recipients start work in the shipyards. We did in World War II and we can do it again now.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Blunting the Spending Bill
Open email to Speaker Boehner and Sen. Majority Leader Elect Mitch
McConnell:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
Congress has now passed the $1.1 trillion spending bill, which we needed to keep the government running. There is high probability that Pres.
Obama will sign the bill into law.
As the new Congress convenes in January with the Republican majority, it will be time to take the junk out of the Spending Bill.
As presently constituted, the Spending Bill provides funding for Homeland Security through February 27, 2015. The relatively short funding time was included by the Republicans in an obviously misguided effort to apply some sort of limit on Pres. Obama's amnesty program. With the new Congress in January, it will be time to face up to the fact that some drastically realistic action will be needed. For starters, funding for any amnesty involvement should be immediately terminated. Simply stated, the House must revoke any amnesty spending in the original bill, and the Senate must concur. In all probability Pres. Obama will veto the new bill, and it will be up to Congress to make every effort to override the veto. If that doesn't work, look for other ways to kill the amnesty program.
The Spending Bill also provided funding through September 30 for the Defense Department, the Department of Education, the IRS and Healthcare. We need Department of Defense spending and little effort should be made to find pork therein in order to eliminate it. But, any big money that stands out as pork should obviously be addressed and pushed out through a new bill from both the House and Senate. Pres. Obama will likely sign that bill, because he generally is opposed to military spending.
Handling the Department of Education funding is simpler. Eliminate it all. The Department of Education has done more to harm this country than many other actions of government. Defunding it will essentially eliminate it. Pres. Obama will likely veto, in which case you can consider overriding the veto, or if that is not practical, make some concessions that might be more palatable to the President.
Our tax system is abominable, but there's no question that we need a government department to collect taxes and there's no justification for eliminating completely the IRS. The IRS should be funded as necessary to do is its job as a tax collector, but try to eliminate funding for any political involvement that it seems to have undertaken in the past.
When we are talking about Healthcare, we are talking about Obamacare, which is a socialistic program basically involving redistribution of wealth and making healthcare more available to the underprivileged, under the guise of an entitlement rather than welfare, which it is. Healthcare is available to everybody in the country through private sector operations of hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. Obamacare only juggles around the money.
We don't need that. Health insurance companies are prepared to do the job.
Obamacare has not yet forced them out of business. If healthcare insurance companys' charges appear high, they are only a reflection of charges from the healthcare industry, which are presently bloated through public attempts to obtain maximum service with minimum cost by way of government largess.
There are various ways that Congress can modify the healthcare program to make it more amenable to our Democratic/Republic financing. One way is to increase copayments. How about 50%? If you want to spend two days in the hospital, it might cost somebody $3000. If you had to pay $1500, you might think again before deciding on a hospital visit when you could be treated cheaper at home.
All in all, the new Congress should hack away at the $1.1 trillion Spending Bill and get it down to a manageable size by eliminating, as I said before, "junk".
McConnell:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
Congress has now passed the $1.1 trillion spending bill, which we needed to keep the government running. There is high probability that Pres.
Obama will sign the bill into law.
As the new Congress convenes in January with the Republican majority, it will be time to take the junk out of the Spending Bill.
As presently constituted, the Spending Bill provides funding for Homeland Security through February 27, 2015. The relatively short funding time was included by the Republicans in an obviously misguided effort to apply some sort of limit on Pres. Obama's amnesty program. With the new Congress in January, it will be time to face up to the fact that some drastically realistic action will be needed. For starters, funding for any amnesty involvement should be immediately terminated. Simply stated, the House must revoke any amnesty spending in the original bill, and the Senate must concur. In all probability Pres. Obama will veto the new bill, and it will be up to Congress to make every effort to override the veto. If that doesn't work, look for other ways to kill the amnesty program.
The Spending Bill also provided funding through September 30 for the Defense Department, the Department of Education, the IRS and Healthcare. We need Department of Defense spending and little effort should be made to find pork therein in order to eliminate it. But, any big money that stands out as pork should obviously be addressed and pushed out through a new bill from both the House and Senate. Pres. Obama will likely sign that bill, because he generally is opposed to military spending.
Handling the Department of Education funding is simpler. Eliminate it all. The Department of Education has done more to harm this country than many other actions of government. Defunding it will essentially eliminate it. Pres. Obama will likely veto, in which case you can consider overriding the veto, or if that is not practical, make some concessions that might be more palatable to the President.
Our tax system is abominable, but there's no question that we need a government department to collect taxes and there's no justification for eliminating completely the IRS. The IRS should be funded as necessary to do is its job as a tax collector, but try to eliminate funding for any political involvement that it seems to have undertaken in the past.
When we are talking about Healthcare, we are talking about Obamacare, which is a socialistic program basically involving redistribution of wealth and making healthcare more available to the underprivileged, under the guise of an entitlement rather than welfare, which it is. Healthcare is available to everybody in the country through private sector operations of hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. Obamacare only juggles around the money.
We don't need that. Health insurance companies are prepared to do the job.
Obamacare has not yet forced them out of business. If healthcare insurance companys' charges appear high, they are only a reflection of charges from the healthcare industry, which are presently bloated through public attempts to obtain maximum service with minimum cost by way of government largess.
There are various ways that Congress can modify the healthcare program to make it more amenable to our Democratic/Republic financing. One way is to increase copayments. How about 50%? If you want to spend two days in the hospital, it might cost somebody $3000. If you had to pay $1500, you might think again before deciding on a hospital visit when you could be treated cheaper at home.
All in all, the new Congress should hack away at the $1.1 trillion Spending Bill and get it down to a manageable size by eliminating, as I said before, "junk".
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Nancy Pelosi's Nonpower
Open e-mail to Editor of Washington Times:
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Nancy Pelosi's Nonpower
Open e-mail to Editor of Washington Times:
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Amnesty
By Executive Order, Pres. Obama has declared amnesty for more than 4 million immigrants who have broken US immigration laws by entering or remaining in the US illegally. With this action, I have not seen any large demonstrations of illegal immigrants praising the action of Pres. Obama and attempting to rebuild property previously destroyed in antigovernment riots. Conversely, there has been a rather large outcry in the law-abiding community against this action..
There are two issues with respect to the recent Executive Order. Can the President through Executive Order pass new laws, bypassing the Congress? Can the President and his various team members, such as the Justice Department, opt to enforce only certain laws which have previously been passed by Congress?
The Congress has recently entered a lawsuit challenging the President's position on these two issues, particularly the first. While I believe this is a step in the right direction, I'm wondering if this could have a significant outcome. Suppose for example that the Judicial Branch all the way to the Supreme Court declares Pres. Obama's Executive Order on amnesty unconstitutional, what actually will be done about it? First, let's remember that Pres. Obama has control of physical enforcement procedures, such as the use of guns by the FBI and the military, including the National Guard. Will we have a physical revolt, which will actually come to bloodshed? I doubt it. The chances are that in spite of any condemnation by the Judicial, Pres. Obama will go merrily on his way with his amnesty program. In fact, the recently passed spending bill of the House includes money for Obama to implement his amnesty program and unless that is changed in the January sessions of Congress, there will be no stopping it.
This all makes me sad, because it is a major destruction of our society, as previously developed from our Constitution. The Constitution set us up as a country of laws and society has previously come to accept that position. If we are now able to give amnesty to 4 million immigration lawbreakers, one of a few million taxpayers decide not to pay their taxes, and the next President decides to give them amnesty, we will then have anarchy. While the excitement of anarchy may be interesting, the outcome for the continuance of the US as a Democratic Republic is bleak.
There are two issues with respect to the recent Executive Order. Can the President through Executive Order pass new laws, bypassing the Congress? Can the President and his various team members, such as the Justice Department, opt to enforce only certain laws which have previously been passed by Congress?
The Congress has recently entered a lawsuit challenging the President's position on these two issues, particularly the first. While I believe this is a step in the right direction, I'm wondering if this could have a significant outcome. Suppose for example that the Judicial Branch all the way to the Supreme Court declares Pres. Obama's Executive Order on amnesty unconstitutional, what actually will be done about it? First, let's remember that Pres. Obama has control of physical enforcement procedures, such as the use of guns by the FBI and the military, including the National Guard. Will we have a physical revolt, which will actually come to bloodshed? I doubt it. The chances are that in spite of any condemnation by the Judicial, Pres. Obama will go merrily on his way with his amnesty program. In fact, the recently passed spending bill of the House includes money for Obama to implement his amnesty program and unless that is changed in the January sessions of Congress, there will be no stopping it.
This all makes me sad, because it is a major destruction of our society, as previously developed from our Constitution. The Constitution set us up as a country of laws and society has previously come to accept that position. If we are now able to give amnesty to 4 million immigration lawbreakers, one of a few million taxpayers decide not to pay their taxes, and the next President decides to give them amnesty, we will then have anarchy. While the excitement of anarchy may be interesting, the outcome for the continuance of the US as a Democratic Republic is bleak.
Friday, December 12, 2014
$1.1 Trillion Spending Bill
According to the Washington Times, the House passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill. Too much! We will see what the Senate does with it, but Obama seems to be in favor of it and will probably sign it.
I'm hoping that Speaker Boehner is following a suggestion that either originated from other sources or was my contribution. That is, pass the major bill and then come back in January and piecemeal out all of the ridiculous pork and giveaways to Democrats, when both the House and Senate have a substantial Republican majority over the present Congress.
I have my fingers crossed, because of Congress's past record. Let's remember, that we didn't get into an $18 trillion national debt without substantial input from the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.
If the Republicans don't straighten out this spending bill in January when they have much improved majority in the Congress, we can look forward to another revolt in the 2016 elections, at which time many of us will be attempting to throw out the Republican leadership and go to Libertarians, Tea Party or whatever else is left.
I'm hoping that Speaker Boehner is following a suggestion that either originated from other sources or was my contribution. That is, pass the major bill and then come back in January and piecemeal out all of the ridiculous pork and giveaways to Democrats, when both the House and Senate have a substantial Republican majority over the present Congress.
I have my fingers crossed, because of Congress's past record. Let's remember, that we didn't get into an $18 trillion national debt without substantial input from the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.
If the Republicans don't straighten out this spending bill in January when they have much improved majority in the Congress, we can look forward to another revolt in the 2016 elections, at which time many of us will be attempting to throw out the Republican leadership and go to Libertarians, Tea Party or whatever else is left.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Collecting Terrorist Information through Torture
The Senate Intelligence Committee released a report today stating that torture and enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, as used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), were not effective in revealing significant intelligence information for US defense purposes. The CIA strongly disputes that conclusion.
We don't know whether the Senate Intelligence Committee or the CIA is right or wrong or whether they are both partially right. Presumably, the objective of the Senate report is to force the CIA to discontinue using torture and waterboarding, if such is still being used.
If a captured terrorist knows the location of a dirty atomic bomb set to go off in two days and kill or maim thousands of people, I want the CIA to use every means at its disposal to determine the location of that bomb, in order to neutralize it. This includes use of torture, waterboarding and anything else anybody can think of, including pulling out fingernails. However, if the CIA wants the location of where a couple of terrorists meet for coffee and discussions, I'm not much for the torture idea. In other words, the seriousness of the situation will dictate the judgment of what kind of interrogation technique will be used. I can't make that judgment, because there's so much flexibility involved. We have to trust the CIA in most aspects of its operations. I believe we're pretty much convinced that the CIA is trying to protect the American public, and I don't believe we are justified in trying to micromanage it, from a point where we have little or no information.
The big issue seems to be the matter of pain, as judged by abuses of compassion. There are some nuts who believe that minimizing pain in an individual is justification for jeopardizing the lives of millions of people. I'm not one of them. Situations must be handled as they occur. That's why we have the CIA. However, even compassion abusers have some rights and their opinions should be considered.
The idea of torture is based upon an exchange principle. If the tortured person will relieve information, the torturer will relieve applied pain. While it has worked from time immemorial, new technology has entered the scene since the beginning of World War II. The Nazis were developing at that time mind control drugs which in effect when used on an individual allowed that individual to happily and painlessly reveal information. I suspect the CIA is presently using that approach, but perhaps it should be encouraged to engage in additional research and development in that area, which will eventually eliminate torture as obsolete, and simultaneously relieve the pain of compassion abusers.
We don't know whether the Senate Intelligence Committee or the CIA is right or wrong or whether they are both partially right. Presumably, the objective of the Senate report is to force the CIA to discontinue using torture and waterboarding, if such is still being used.
If a captured terrorist knows the location of a dirty atomic bomb set to go off in two days and kill or maim thousands of people, I want the CIA to use every means at its disposal to determine the location of that bomb, in order to neutralize it. This includes use of torture, waterboarding and anything else anybody can think of, including pulling out fingernails. However, if the CIA wants the location of where a couple of terrorists meet for coffee and discussions, I'm not much for the torture idea. In other words, the seriousness of the situation will dictate the judgment of what kind of interrogation technique will be used. I can't make that judgment, because there's so much flexibility involved. We have to trust the CIA in most aspects of its operations. I believe we're pretty much convinced that the CIA is trying to protect the American public, and I don't believe we are justified in trying to micromanage it, from a point where we have little or no information.
The big issue seems to be the matter of pain, as judged by abuses of compassion. There are some nuts who believe that minimizing pain in an individual is justification for jeopardizing the lives of millions of people. I'm not one of them. Situations must be handled as they occur. That's why we have the CIA. However, even compassion abusers have some rights and their opinions should be considered.
The idea of torture is based upon an exchange principle. If the tortured person will relieve information, the torturer will relieve applied pain. While it has worked from time immemorial, new technology has entered the scene since the beginning of World War II. The Nazis were developing at that time mind control drugs which in effect when used on an individual allowed that individual to happily and painlessly reveal information. I suspect the CIA is presently using that approach, but perhaps it should be encouraged to engage in additional research and development in that area, which will eventually eliminate torture as obsolete, and simultaneously relieve the pain of compassion abusers.
Process for Congressional Voting
The Washington Times says, "Congress fast-tracks bills loaded with special interest projects in year-end rush".
The House of Representatives will shut down on any new legislation passage on December 11. The Senate is scheduled to be operating through the end of the year, except for weekends and holidays. Both houses want to push through some legislation before the end of the year.
For example, there is a massive Defense Policy Bill and various tax breaks bills. Some of these, such as the Defense Policy Bill are important and urgent, but, they are loaded with pork.
Standard procedure in both houses of Congress is to negotiate a bills contents in order to obtain enough votes for the bill's passage. This is usually done by some sort of pork process. For example, if a major bill is intended to supply our military with the latest technology in military equipment, it may be necessary to obtain the vote of a representative or senator to include in the bill an allocation for building a chicken house in his area. This process usually works to the advantage of the chicken house advocate, because of the necessity of passing the major objective of the bill. However in the voting process, there is usually a lot of argument and consternation, which I believe is unnecessary. I suggest that r Epresentatives and Senators rethink their attitudes and concentrate on the importance of the major aspects of a particular bill and basically ignore pork additions other accepting them in order to achieve enough votes for the total bill's passage.
Congress has a later opportunity to go through the details of the law, if passed by both houses and signed by the president, and take out the pork or at least neutralize it by a defunding process. This may seem onerous with respect to other business requirements in Congress, but it need not be so. Congressmen and Senators will easily recognize a pork situation, if presented quickly and clearly to them and vote against its continuance. None of this will take much time. There is a possibility a filibuster from the pork proponent, but the new Congress in January should easily have enough votes to kill any such ridiculous filibuster in support of a pork situation.
The House of Representatives will shut down on any new legislation passage on December 11. The Senate is scheduled to be operating through the end of the year, except for weekends and holidays. Both houses want to push through some legislation before the end of the year.
For example, there is a massive Defense Policy Bill and various tax breaks bills. Some of these, such as the Defense Policy Bill are important and urgent, but, they are loaded with pork.
Standard procedure in both houses of Congress is to negotiate a bills contents in order to obtain enough votes for the bill's passage. This is usually done by some sort of pork process. For example, if a major bill is intended to supply our military with the latest technology in military equipment, it may be necessary to obtain the vote of a representative or senator to include in the bill an allocation for building a chicken house in his area. This process usually works to the advantage of the chicken house advocate, because of the necessity of passing the major objective of the bill. However in the voting process, there is usually a lot of argument and consternation, which I believe is unnecessary. I suggest that r Epresentatives and Senators rethink their attitudes and concentrate on the importance of the major aspects of a particular bill and basically ignore pork additions other accepting them in order to achieve enough votes for the total bill's passage.
Congress has a later opportunity to go through the details of the law, if passed by both houses and signed by the president, and take out the pork or at least neutralize it by a defunding process. This may seem onerous with respect to other business requirements in Congress, but it need not be so. Congressmen and Senators will easily recognize a pork situation, if presented quickly and clearly to them and vote against its continuance. None of this will take much time. There is a possibility a filibuster from the pork proponent, but the new Congress in January should easily have enough votes to kill any such ridiculous filibuster in support of a pork situation.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Protecting US Citizens Abroad
Luke Somers is an American citizen photojournalist. He was working as a translator at a National Dialogue Conference, which was held at Sana'a, Yemen, as part of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2051. It should be noted that Luke Somers was not an employee of the US government.
During Luke's presence in Sana'a, he was captured by Al Qaeda and was being held for ransom/negotiations, with threat of death. The Obama Administration ran a special task force to try to save Somers, but it failed. Al Qaeda has now executed Somers.
The question seems to be what do you do to protect American citizens in dangerous parts of the world? It's not an easy one to answer, but I think I can offer clarity on the subject.
The first thing to consider is whether a particular country is dangerous to American citizens. We can easily pick out a few that are not dangerous, such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Some of the clearly dangerous ones are Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Some appear to be marginal, such as Mexico, Cuba, Lebanon, and Israel. However, I don't think that's specific enough.
I believe the United States government should designate which countries of the world are unsafe for Americans to travel and work in. Travel would mean entry to the country for business reasons, family contacts, tourism, missionary and other religious work. Perhaps the best test whether a country is dangerous for Americans is whether the United States maintains a working embassy with minimal security in the country.
If a country is on the dangerous list, the position of the United States should be that Americans are not restricted from entering or operating within the country, but the United States government will take no extraordinary means to protect them or save them from further harm if captured or detained. Persons excluded from that position would be all employees of the United States government, including military personnel, federal representatives and congressmen, State Department officials, spies, or any activity as long as they are on the federal government payroll. Note that this does not include state or local officials, such as governors or mayors. Retired government officials on pension would not be protected, except for US ex-presidents. I'm not sure what to do about the employees of contractors to the US government, but there should be a clear resolution.
Recovering a detained American government employee might occasionally involve payment of ransom or similar monetary negotiation. However, the standard US government action would usually be a declaration of war on the country or group involved in the capture or detention, followed by subsequent strong military action unless there is immediate release. The military action would only be terminated on the unimpeded release of the captured or detained US employee. Assassination of the US employee by the captors would be justification for continuation of the strong military action as a retribution and lesson to others who may be tempted to follow a similar route.
During Luke's presence in Sana'a, he was captured by Al Qaeda and was being held for ransom/negotiations, with threat of death. The Obama Administration ran a special task force to try to save Somers, but it failed. Al Qaeda has now executed Somers.
The question seems to be what do you do to protect American citizens in dangerous parts of the world? It's not an easy one to answer, but I think I can offer clarity on the subject.
The first thing to consider is whether a particular country is dangerous to American citizens. We can easily pick out a few that are not dangerous, such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Some of the clearly dangerous ones are Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Some appear to be marginal, such as Mexico, Cuba, Lebanon, and Israel. However, I don't think that's specific enough.
I believe the United States government should designate which countries of the world are unsafe for Americans to travel and work in. Travel would mean entry to the country for business reasons, family contacts, tourism, missionary and other religious work. Perhaps the best test whether a country is dangerous for Americans is whether the United States maintains a working embassy with minimal security in the country.
If a country is on the dangerous list, the position of the United States should be that Americans are not restricted from entering or operating within the country, but the United States government will take no extraordinary means to protect them or save them from further harm if captured or detained. Persons excluded from that position would be all employees of the United States government, including military personnel, federal representatives and congressmen, State Department officials, spies, or any activity as long as they are on the federal government payroll. Note that this does not include state or local officials, such as governors or mayors. Retired government officials on pension would not be protected, except for US ex-presidents. I'm not sure what to do about the employees of contractors to the US government, but there should be a clear resolution.
Recovering a detained American government employee might occasionally involve payment of ransom or similar monetary negotiation. However, the standard US government action would usually be a declaration of war on the country or group involved in the capture or detention, followed by subsequent strong military action unless there is immediate release. The military action would only be terminated on the unimpeded release of the captured or detained US employee. Assassination of the US employee by the captors would be justification for continuation of the strong military action as a retribution and lesson to others who may be tempted to follow a similar route.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Rioting in Black Communities
Open email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Lawbreaking in Black Communities
Hillary Clinton says that police officers are more apt to stop and interrogate black persons than white persons. This is true. In making her statement, Hillary is implying that there is racial discrimination. If she is implying this, it is untrue. Fact is that more black persons than white persons have broken laws and are candidates for interrogation.
This could be easily resolved by the black community acknowledging that this is a country of laws and that black people should not break laws anymore than white people. If black people have grievances, there are other means of resolution rather than resorting to violence, which in many cases involves destruction of property or stealing of same. Positive programs are becoming involved in law enforcement groups, such as police officers or higher levels such as district attorneys or prosecutors. Black activities should never involve rabble rousing, which is only a recipe for lawbreaking
This could be easily resolved by the black community acknowledging that this is a country of laws and that black people should not break laws anymore than white people. If black people have grievances, there are other means of resolution rather than resorting to violence, which in many cases involves destruction of property or stealing of same. Positive programs are becoming involved in law enforcement groups, such as police officers or higher levels such as district attorneys or prosecutors. Black activities should never involve rabble rousing, which is only a recipe for lawbreaking
Federal Control of State Lands
The Washington Times says that the state of Utah plans to take over from the federal government 31.2 million acres of Utah land now under federal government control. Before you get excited, this does not include national parks and national monuments, such as Arches, Bryce, and Zion.
Utah's land size is 54.3 million acres and the federal government controls more than half of it.
The federal government controls more than 50 percent of all land west of Kansas — in Utah’s case, it’s 64.5 percent. This means that this large amount of land is unavailable for private ownership and development.
Utah state officials will proceed with a program of education, negotiation, legislation and litigation. It will not involve use of military or police force.
This will also hopefully serve as a model for other Western states to similarly join in reducing federal control of state lands.
It should be noted that moving federal control of land to state control will not automatically make land available to the public for private development, but it is at least a step in the right direction of reducing the onerous controls of the federal government departments, such as the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service.
Let's remember that is the intended passage of the Keystone pipeline through federal government controlled lands that has held up the construction of this pipeline for the last several years.
Utah's land size is 54.3 million acres and the federal government controls more than half of it.
The federal government controls more than 50 percent of all land west of Kansas — in Utah’s case, it’s 64.5 percent. This means that this large amount of land is unavailable for private ownership and development.
Utah state officials will proceed with a program of education, negotiation, legislation and litigation. It will not involve use of military or police force.
This will also hopefully serve as a model for other Western states to similarly join in reducing federal control of state lands.
It should be noted that moving federal control of land to state control will not automatically make land available to the public for private development, but it is at least a step in the right direction of reducing the onerous controls of the federal government departments, such as the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service.
Let's remember that is the intended passage of the Keystone pipeline through federal government controlled lands that has held up the construction of this pipeline for the last several years.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Reducing Black Rioting
Open email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Amnesty
According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama says granting legal status to 5 million illegal immigrants is not amnesty. Amnesty is having 5 million illegal immigrants.
What kind of convoluted thinking is that? This man is either a genius in his capability of innovation or insane.
My son says if you call a sheep's tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? The answer is 4. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
What kind of convoluted thinking is that? This man is either a genius in his capability of innovation or insane.
My son says if you call a sheep's tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? The answer is 4. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
Chicken Grant Jury?
The Washington Times says the Ferguson grand jury dispersed without taking a position on whether or not to indict police officer Darrell Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown.
It may be that there was truly enough difference of opinion within the members of the grand jury as to be unable to make a decision, but I suspect otherwise.
In all likelihood, the grand jury members decided not to take a position because in so doing it would incite public wrath. If this is so, we are again faced with the problem of what is happening to our country of laws and the enforcement thereof. If we as a people, grand jury or general public, are unwilling to face some negative aspects of law enforcement, we can be sure that this is the end of our country.
It may be that there was truly enough difference of opinion within the members of the grand jury as to be unable to make a decision, but I suspect otherwise.
In all likelihood, the grand jury members decided not to take a position because in so doing it would incite public wrath. If this is so, we are again faced with the problem of what is happening to our country of laws and the enforcement thereof. If we as a people, grand jury or general public, are unwilling to face some negative aspects of law enforcement, we can be sure that this is the end of our country.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Quid Pro Quo or Something for Something
Organizing for Action (OFA) is said to be a community organizing organization. In fact, it was a fund-raising operation for the reelection of Pres. Obama. The present webpage for OFA is https://www.barackobama.com/about-ofa/ . Note the name Barack Obama included in the address.
Since Barack Obama is no longer eligible for reelection as president, the organization has been modified to give general support to the reelection of Democrats.
The Washington Times reports that following Pres. Obama's recent executive order giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, most of whom will vote Democrat, he sent out an email to a number of Democratic supporters referring them to the OFA website. The website contains a "donate" button asking for donations of from $50-$1000.
In sending emails, Pres. Obama is saying to the recipients that he took the first step of qualifying millions of illegal Americans to vote Democrat and now Democrat supporters must come up with their end of the bargain by donating money for reelection of Democrat officeholders.
Since Barack Obama is no longer eligible for reelection as president, the organization has been modified to give general support to the reelection of Democrats.
The Washington Times reports that following Pres. Obama's recent executive order giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, most of whom will vote Democrat, he sent out an email to a number of Democratic supporters referring them to the OFA website. The website contains a "donate" button asking for donations of from $50-$1000.
In sending emails, Pres. Obama is saying to the recipients that he took the first step of qualifying millions of illegal Americans to vote Democrat and now Democrat supporters must come up with their end of the bargain by donating money for reelection of Democrat officeholders.
Generic Pharmaceutical Prices
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont claims to be an independent, but by his actions has shown to be a Democrat/Socialist. He is now in a tizzy concerning generic pharmaceuticals. He claims that recent price hikes are unconscionable. That statement alone causes one to believe that he is probably more socialist than anything.
I have no way of knowing whether recent price increases for generic pharmaceuticals are reasonable based upon costs of and marketing, but I do know we have antitrust laws. If various members of companies involved in the production and sales of generic drugs, have been fixing prices, it is up to antitrust regulators to determine that fact and follow up with prosecutions, which previously held jail sentences.
Bernie Sanders should stop ranting and raving on the subject. If he wants to do something positive to be sure that the public is receiving a fair shake, he needs to go to the Justice Department and ask them to investigate generic drug pricing.
I have no way of knowing whether recent price increases for generic pharmaceuticals are reasonable based upon costs of and marketing, but I do know we have antitrust laws. If various members of companies involved in the production and sales of generic drugs, have been fixing prices, it is up to antitrust regulators to determine that fact and follow up with prosecutions, which previously held jail sentences.
Bernie Sanders should stop ranting and raving on the subject. If he wants to do something positive to be sure that the public is receiving a fair shake, he needs to go to the Justice Department and ask them to investigate generic drug pricing.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Amnesty
By executive order, Pres. Obama has just given amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Entry into the United States by avoiding immigration regulations is a misdemeanor.
Pres. Obama justifies his amnesty by saying that these people will now pay taxes. Stuart Varney later came on TV and disputed whether there would be any significant tax gain from the program. Both of them are dodging the real issue.
We have been a country of laws, which has made us different from many countries of the world. Being a country of laws means that there are laws against certain societal actions; for example bank robbery, child molestation, illegal immigration, etc. To be a country of laws, enforcement of the laws is also necessary. For this, we have a federal Justice Department and state and local police. These people have the responsibility of bringing lawbreakers to various judges for application of penalties, such as imprisonment or fine.
When amnesty is granted to millions of lawbreakers, we are no longer a country of laws. If we try to justify the amnesty by the fact that the lawbreakers will now pay taxes, are we not saying that if you break a law in the US you can buy your way out of the penalty?
Pres. Obama justifies his amnesty by saying that these people will now pay taxes. Stuart Varney later came on TV and disputed whether there would be any significant tax gain from the program. Both of them are dodging the real issue.
We have been a country of laws, which has made us different from many countries of the world. Being a country of laws means that there are laws against certain societal actions; for example bank robbery, child molestation, illegal immigration, etc. To be a country of laws, enforcement of the laws is also necessary. For this, we have a federal Justice Department and state and local police. These people have the responsibility of bringing lawbreakers to various judges for application of penalties, such as imprisonment or fine.
When amnesty is granted to millions of lawbreakers, we are no longer a country of laws. If we try to justify the amnesty by the fact that the lawbreakers will now pay taxes, are we not saying that if you break a law in the US you can buy your way out of the penalty?
Putin on Muslim Invasions
The
following was sent to me by a political associate and has my
blessing:
"This is one time our elected leaders and every citizen of the USA should pay attention to the advice of Vladimir Putin. On August 4, 2012, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president addressed the Duma (Russian Parliament) and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:
It is a sad day when a communist leader makes more sense than our leaders here in the US, but here it is:
"In Russia, live like Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, it should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslim's then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how wild they yell' discrimination'. We will not tolerate disrespect the bar Russian culture. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland, and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russians are taking over those countries and they will not take over Russia. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of sharia law and Muslims.
"When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Russian national interest first, observing that the Muslim minorities are not Russians."
"The members of the Dumas gave Putin a five-minute standing ovation".
"This is one time our elected leaders and every citizen of the USA should pay attention to the advice of Vladimir Putin. On August 4, 2012, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president addressed the Duma (Russian Parliament) and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:
It is a sad day when a communist leader makes more sense than our leaders here in the US, but here it is:
"In Russia, live like Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, it should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslim's then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how wild they yell' discrimination'. We will not tolerate disrespect the bar Russian culture. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland, and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russians are taking over those countries and they will not take over Russia. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of sharia law and Muslims.
"When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Russian national interest first, observing that the Muslim minorities are not Russians."
"The members of the Dumas gave Putin a five-minute standing ovation".
Ineptitude of the Department of Energy
According to the Washington Times, the Government Accountability Office, which is an investigatory arm of Congress, reports that the U.S. Energy Department is failing in its job to properly review nuclear exports.
Nuclear exports are of two types. These are products and processes which are used for peaceful purposes, such as diagnostic medical testing, and those products and processes which can aid in the development of a nuclear weapon.
We are particularly concerned with the latter, because a proliferation of nuclear weapons within the world increases the likelihood of nuclear weapon use wherein a single blast could kill hundreds of thousands of people.
There is no room for sloppiness in the government or anywhere else in the program to contain nuclear proliferation. At least two years ago, I advocated elimination of the Department of Energy (DOE), because of its ineptitude in handling not only conventional energy, such as oil, but also nuclear controls.
As Iran is on the doorstep of becoming another nuclear weapon power, we have additional proof that the DOE is completely incompetent in controlling nonproliferation weapon capability.
I call again on Congress to eliminate the DOE and place the responsibility for nuclear energy control with the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense.
Nuclear exports are of two types. These are products and processes which are used for peaceful purposes, such as diagnostic medical testing, and those products and processes which can aid in the development of a nuclear weapon.
We are particularly concerned with the latter, because a proliferation of nuclear weapons within the world increases the likelihood of nuclear weapon use wherein a single blast could kill hundreds of thousands of people.
There is no room for sloppiness in the government or anywhere else in the program to contain nuclear proliferation. At least two years ago, I advocated elimination of the Department of Energy (DOE), because of its ineptitude in handling not only conventional energy, such as oil, but also nuclear controls.
As Iran is on the doorstep of becoming another nuclear weapon power, we have additional proof that the DOE is completely incompetent in controlling nonproliferation weapon capability.
I call again on Congress to eliminate the DOE and place the responsibility for nuclear energy control with the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
UN Arms Treaty
Open email to US Senators:
Dear US Senators,
The U.N. Arms Trade treaty is set to take effect on Christmas Eve.
Under the terms of the treaty, participating nations are required to set up export and import controls for combat vehicles, aircraft and small arms. The text of the treaty also requires that participating member states establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions.
The treaty has been signed by 122 states and has been ratified by 54. It will become effective on 24 December 2014, because it has been ratified or acceded to by the requisite 50 states.
The U.S. delegation to the United Nations supports the treaty and the current White House is publicly touting support for the treaty.
The US is not a ratified member of the treaty. This requires a two thirds approval by the Senate.
I call on all Senate members to not even come close to ratification and assumption of a US obligation to the terms of this treaty. It is an instrument of the UN to control world order, and we have already seen the ineptitude of that organization in much less important matters.
The United States will control world order, not the UN. As we continue to improve our administration and particularly in the 2016 election, we will be better able to do so. Meanwhile, we should not establish any hindrance to that major objective and responsibility.
Dear US Senators,
The U.N. Arms Trade treaty is set to take effect on Christmas Eve.
Under the terms of the treaty, participating nations are required to set up export and import controls for combat vehicles, aircraft and small arms. The text of the treaty also requires that participating member states establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions.
The treaty has been signed by 122 states and has been ratified by 54. It will become effective on 24 December 2014, because it has been ratified or acceded to by the requisite 50 states.
The U.S. delegation to the United Nations supports the treaty and the current White House is publicly touting support for the treaty.
The US is not a ratified member of the treaty. This requires a two thirds approval by the Senate.
I call on all Senate members to not even come close to ratification and assumption of a US obligation to the terms of this treaty. It is an instrument of the UN to control world order, and we have already seen the ineptitude of that organization in much less important matters.
The United States will control world order, not the UN. As we continue to improve our administration and particularly in the 2016 election, we will be better able to do so. Meanwhile, we should not establish any hindrance to that major objective and responsibility.
Racial Organizations
The November 10 issue of Chemical and Engineering News reports on a recent meeting of an NOBCChE members in New Orleans. That acronym stands for National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists & Chemical Engineers.
I'm certainly not against advancement of black chemists and chemical engineers. In fact, I have an emotional attachment to the subject, since my graduate school laboratory partner in 1943 was a black chemist. Lincoln Diuguid has been my friend for 71 years.
However, I continue to be concerned with the continuing efforts of minority groups to separate themselves from American culture. One of the precepts for the founding of the United States of America was to be a melting pot for various nationalities and cultures of the world. The presumption was that immigrants of these various cultures and nationalities would assimilate to a general society. This has been effective. My grandfather was a Hungarian unable to speak English. My father grew up on the East side of New York, subsequently became a banker, and I have worked many years as a PhD chemist. My grandfather was unable to assimilate to American culture and language, but his progeny were able to do so. It is inconceivable to me that there would have been any advantage to either the United States of America or to my family if we had retained our Hungarian language and culture and associated only with Hungarians of similar background.
On that basis I have to be adamantly opposed to all efforts of minorities to segregate themselves from national programs, where such programs exist without discrimination.
One of the objectives of the American Chemical Society is to promote the professional advancement of its members. This includes all races of black, white, green and red, as well as Americans of at least 140 or so original nationalities. I see no reason why black or Hungarian chemists would have to go off on their own to establish individual segments of promotion, which would only have the effect of weakening the development of the whole.
If black chemists and engineers need to associate with each other for recreational purposes, that seems justifiable, but for professional basic needs, it can only do damage to the coherence of our country. Would Blacks consider reestablishing programs where they could eat only in black restaurants and use black restrooms, because they would be excluded from using white facilities?
I'm certainly not against advancement of black chemists and chemical engineers. In fact, I have an emotional attachment to the subject, since my graduate school laboratory partner in 1943 was a black chemist. Lincoln Diuguid has been my friend for 71 years.
However, I continue to be concerned with the continuing efforts of minority groups to separate themselves from American culture. One of the precepts for the founding of the United States of America was to be a melting pot for various nationalities and cultures of the world. The presumption was that immigrants of these various cultures and nationalities would assimilate to a general society. This has been effective. My grandfather was a Hungarian unable to speak English. My father grew up on the East side of New York, subsequently became a banker, and I have worked many years as a PhD chemist. My grandfather was unable to assimilate to American culture and language, but his progeny were able to do so. It is inconceivable to me that there would have been any advantage to either the United States of America or to my family if we had retained our Hungarian language and culture and associated only with Hungarians of similar background.
On that basis I have to be adamantly opposed to all efforts of minorities to segregate themselves from national programs, where such programs exist without discrimination.
One of the objectives of the American Chemical Society is to promote the professional advancement of its members. This includes all races of black, white, green and red, as well as Americans of at least 140 or so original nationalities. I see no reason why black or Hungarian chemists would have to go off on their own to establish individual segments of promotion, which would only have the effect of weakening the development of the whole.
If black chemists and engineers need to associate with each other for recreational purposes, that seems justifiable, but for professional basic needs, it can only do damage to the coherence of our country. Would Blacks consider reestablishing programs where they could eat only in black restaurants and use black restrooms, because they would be excluded from using white facilities?
Keystone Pipeline
There is a lot of oil in Western Canada, but Canadians don't have the local infrastructure nor facilities to refine it. They want to sell it, and the two obvious best customers are China and the United States. While the oil is concentrated in Western Canada, it is not on the coast. To be shipped by sea, it would have to be transported overland to terminals on the Pacific coast. From there, it could be shipped in tankers to China or to the US. If it is shipped to the US, it would have to go around the southern tip of South America to come up into the US Gulf Coast, where the US complex of refineries and petrochemical plants are located. The Suez Canal can't handle big tankers. Alternative shipment to the US Gulf Coast could be done by pipeline, which is the basis for all of the hubbub.
Environmentalists oppose bringing Canadian crude into the US for refining into motor fuels and ancillary products, because it would increase the burning of such fossil fuels, with the attendant liberation of carbon dioxide. Let's remember two things about carbon dioxide; one political and one fact. The environmental movement in the United States has been taken over by communist/ socialist sympathizers. Their agenda is to reduce the economic importance of the US; in effect, a redistribution of wealth. They also have considerable financial resources and support Democrats in reelection. President Obama and Democrats owe much to environmentalists for their reelection. As an instrument to foster their objective of wealth distribution, environmentalists have also developed a myth, which claims that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change. There is absolutely no scientific data or reasonable theory to justify this position, but because of its fear aspects, it has tended to receive significant support from the general public, which then radiates into the people's political representatives, such as federal Representatives and Senators. In essence, Democrats have two reasons to oppose increased usage of fossil fuels, including the Keystone pipeline which would bring Canadian crude to the US Gulf Coast. These are the desire for continued financial support of environmentalists in reelections, and the fact that many of them actually believe the carbon dioxide myth.
An executive order signed in 1968 gave the U.S. State Department the authority to approve or deny cross-border facilities, including oil pipelines and electricity transmission lines. Since the Secretary of State works for Pres. Obama, approval or disapproval of the Keystone pipeline lies with him. However, constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, allows it the right to overturn this executive order.
House Republicans have for several years been in favor of approving the Keystone pipeline, but Harry Reid's Democratic Senate has not allowed a floor vote. More recently, and with the old Democratic majority Senate and Harry Reid still in session, Democrat Sen. Landrieu of Louisiana broke party lines and asked for a floor vote on the pipeline. Senate Democrats immediately began a filibuster to deny bringing the issue to vote. Sen. Landrieu had all 45 Republicans and 14 Democrats on her side to break the Democratic filibuster, but it was insufficient to the required 60 votes. The Senate did not take a floor vote on the pipeline. The question then arises as to whether a favorable Senate vote can be developed in January with the new Senate in which Republicans will be a majority. It is generally conceded that Pres. Obama would veto any congressional bill to approve the pipeline and that despite the increased Republican representation in the Congress, there will not be enough votes to override his veto.
The question then arises as to whether the Keystone pipeline will ever become operable. It appears unlikely that it will gain approval in the near future and justify continued capital expenditure by the owners. The next key date for a possible turnaround will be the 2016 elections. A new Democratic president will likely continue the stalemate, while a new Republican president will probably sign a congressional bill allowing operation of the pipeline. Will the Canadians wait another two years for a conjectural decision on the pipeline, commence building infrastructure and refineries for their own processing, or build the port facilities for shipments to China?
Environmentalists oppose bringing Canadian crude into the US for refining into motor fuels and ancillary products, because it would increase the burning of such fossil fuels, with the attendant liberation of carbon dioxide. Let's remember two things about carbon dioxide; one political and one fact. The environmental movement in the United States has been taken over by communist/ socialist sympathizers. Their agenda is to reduce the economic importance of the US; in effect, a redistribution of wealth. They also have considerable financial resources and support Democrats in reelection. President Obama and Democrats owe much to environmentalists for their reelection. As an instrument to foster their objective of wealth distribution, environmentalists have also developed a myth, which claims that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change. There is absolutely no scientific data or reasonable theory to justify this position, but because of its fear aspects, it has tended to receive significant support from the general public, which then radiates into the people's political representatives, such as federal Representatives and Senators. In essence, Democrats have two reasons to oppose increased usage of fossil fuels, including the Keystone pipeline which would bring Canadian crude to the US Gulf Coast. These are the desire for continued financial support of environmentalists in reelections, and the fact that many of them actually believe the carbon dioxide myth.
An executive order signed in 1968 gave the U.S. State Department the authority to approve or deny cross-border facilities, including oil pipelines and electricity transmission lines. Since the Secretary of State works for Pres. Obama, approval or disapproval of the Keystone pipeline lies with him. However, constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, allows it the right to overturn this executive order.
House Republicans have for several years been in favor of approving the Keystone pipeline, but Harry Reid's Democratic Senate has not allowed a floor vote. More recently, and with the old Democratic majority Senate and Harry Reid still in session, Democrat Sen. Landrieu of Louisiana broke party lines and asked for a floor vote on the pipeline. Senate Democrats immediately began a filibuster to deny bringing the issue to vote. Sen. Landrieu had all 45 Republicans and 14 Democrats on her side to break the Democratic filibuster, but it was insufficient to the required 60 votes. The Senate did not take a floor vote on the pipeline. The question then arises as to whether a favorable Senate vote can be developed in January with the new Senate in which Republicans will be a majority. It is generally conceded that Pres. Obama would veto any congressional bill to approve the pipeline and that despite the increased Republican representation in the Congress, there will not be enough votes to override his veto.
The question then arises as to whether the Keystone pipeline will ever become operable. It appears unlikely that it will gain approval in the near future and justify continued capital expenditure by the owners. The next key date for a possible turnaround will be the 2016 elections. A new Democratic president will likely continue the stalemate, while a new Republican president will probably sign a congressional bill allowing operation of the pipeline. Will the Canadians wait another two years for a conjectural decision on the pipeline, commence building infrastructure and refineries for their own processing, or build the port facilities for shipments to China?
EPA's Control of Toxic Substances
As an add-on to my recent essay on revision of the Toxic Chemicals law, Chemical and Engineering News has come up with additional information on the EPA in its November 3 issue.
The EPA has added 23 chemicals to its list of chemicals for further scrutiny and potential control. It also removed 16 chemicals from the list, including 13 that the agency claims are no longer sold in the US. The changes have been made to reflect new data that industry submitted to the EPA concerning chemical releases and potential exposures. This marks the first time the agency has updated its list of chemicals since 2012. The list now contains 90 substances or groups of compounds that may cause reproductive, developmental or neurotoxic effects, are carcinogenic, or are in children's products.
The American Chemistry Council has objected to the new inclusion of bisphenol A and the group of phthalate chemicals on the basis that these substances have already been reviewed by other regulatory programs. Notice that the EPA has not banned these substances from sale; merely that the substances are being assessed for possible regulation. These products are important sales to the chemical industry, but should be banned if the EPA investigation shows any possible significant danger to public health. Let's hope that the EPA analysis will not take forever. If the substances are already doing damage in the society, the sooner we can remove them from the environment the quicker we will be able to show public health improvement.
With respect to chemicals stricken from the list as no longer in commerce, this is based upon EPA's limit of investigation involving production of 25,000 pounds or more at each production site per year. This seems unreasonable to me, because it doesn't allow for variations in toxicity for individual chemicals. For example, take the case of Tabun, which was developed as a pesticide in Germany in the 1930s. One gram of Tabun applied to the skin of a human body is a lethal dose. If we go strictly by the EPA investigation rules, Tabun could be produced at 10 different sites in quantities of 22,000 pounds per year, for a total of 220,000 pounds (100,000 kg) per year, and escape the EPA's investigation limit. At the lethal dosage of 1 g per person, that quantity could kill 100 million people.
I call on Sen. Imhofe, the new Chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, to work with the EPA in developing more practical procedures for determining what chemicals should be allowable for use and exposure to the public through commercial products.
The EPA has added 23 chemicals to its list of chemicals for further scrutiny and potential control. It also removed 16 chemicals from the list, including 13 that the agency claims are no longer sold in the US. The changes have been made to reflect new data that industry submitted to the EPA concerning chemical releases and potential exposures. This marks the first time the agency has updated its list of chemicals since 2012. The list now contains 90 substances or groups of compounds that may cause reproductive, developmental or neurotoxic effects, are carcinogenic, or are in children's products.
The American Chemistry Council has objected to the new inclusion of bisphenol A and the group of phthalate chemicals on the basis that these substances have already been reviewed by other regulatory programs. Notice that the EPA has not banned these substances from sale; merely that the substances are being assessed for possible regulation. These products are important sales to the chemical industry, but should be banned if the EPA investigation shows any possible significant danger to public health. Let's hope that the EPA analysis will not take forever. If the substances are already doing damage in the society, the sooner we can remove them from the environment the quicker we will be able to show public health improvement.
With respect to chemicals stricken from the list as no longer in commerce, this is based upon EPA's limit of investigation involving production of 25,000 pounds or more at each production site per year. This seems unreasonable to me, because it doesn't allow for variations in toxicity for individual chemicals. For example, take the case of Tabun, which was developed as a pesticide in Germany in the 1930s. One gram of Tabun applied to the skin of a human body is a lethal dose. If we go strictly by the EPA investigation rules, Tabun could be produced at 10 different sites in quantities of 22,000 pounds per year, for a total of 220,000 pounds (100,000 kg) per year, and escape the EPA's investigation limit. At the lethal dosage of 1 g per person, that quantity could kill 100 million people.
I call on Sen. Imhofe, the new Chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, to work with the EPA in developing more practical procedures for determining what chemicals should be allowable for use and exposure to the public through commercial products.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
outlaw Islam in the US That
According to the Washington Times, the Washington National Cathedral has hosted the first-ever Muslim prayer service. This has created a firestorm of objection on the Internet.
The Washington Times also reports that some Muslims of Somalia origin have taken over the state of Minnesota. Following up on the detail, it appears that some Somalia Muslim cabdrivers refuse to carry passengers who may be in noncompliance with Muslim law/culture. This includes passengers who be carrying or may have obviously used alcohol. Somalia Muslim cashiers at a major supermarket have refused to check out bacon. In one case, a large stash of Muslim approved hallucinogenic drug has been discovered.
I have tended to duck this issue of Muslims in the US until now, but these two above items have prompted me to investigate further. Our U.S. Constitution says that we should not discriminate against religion. The question seems to be whether Islam is a religion or a culture. If a religion, we should permit its use in the US. If a culture, and particularly if it is antagonistic or militaristic to the continued operations of the American government and American culture, it should be controlled by federal, state, and municipal law.
With respect to the Washington National Cathedral episode, I have checked the historical prayer services. The preponderance of prayer services at Washington National Cathedral have been Christian-based, meaning prayer services led by representatives of various Christian groups, such as Episcopalians, Methodists, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, etc.. The only prayer service leaders from other religious/cultural groups have been rabbis, representing the Jewish faith.
The obvious question to me was whether Islam religion/culture is similar enough in total content compared to Hebrew religion/culture, to allow representation at the Washington National Cathedral.
Through Internet research, it appears that Islam is more of a culture than that of an actual religion. Islam is a complete way of life. Many scholars agree that Islam impacts every part of life, from eating and sleeping to working and playing. It is not only a personal religion, but also a social one. However, we can also say the same thing about the Hebrew/Jewish culture.
The question then arises as to whether there is a significant difference between Islam culture and Hebrew culture, as to justify the inclusion of one culture's representative in Washington Cathedral prayer service and not the other.
For such consideration, we need to consider the content of the culture, as well as the degree of following. I will get to the content of the cultures shortly, but first touch on the degree of following, which is generally indicated by use of the word Orthodox. An Orthodox follower is a strict adherant to cultural rules. We have Orthodox following in various branches of religion/culture. In Christianity, we even have it in the name of Greek Orthodox. In Hebrew religion/culture, there are Orthodox Jews. In Islam, the closest definition would be jihadists or terrorists.
Consider now the content of Islam culture versus Hebrew culture. Scholars generally agree that the Muslim culture is not based on the Quran but rather on the example set by Mohammed. He was kind to his fellow Muslims, and he was often cruel to non-Muslims, especially if they criticized Islam or hindered its expansion. He was perhaps a typical seventh-century warlord — ordering assassinations of his enemies, torturing people for information, owning slaves, and killing enemies in mass executions — but his example is preserved in writing, and so is the Quranic encouragement to all devout, present-day Muslims to follow his example. In a simplified term, the terrorist activities of Muslims are Orthodox and completely consistent with Mohammed's teaching of the culture. As we look at the Orthodox practice of Hebrew culture, we see no similar militant aspects.
It is also said that the teachings in Islamic mosques and training centers in the US and subsequent external promotion and application to US culture is training in political action, advocating a foreign, fascist political system, preaching hatred toward other religions, and sending funds to foreign movements to support anti-American activities. Such practice would completely disqualify the organizations from religious tax exemption, on the basis that it is a political movement. An even more appropriate term might be that they should be considered organizations of sedititious political action.
The bottom line on all of this is that an unknown percentage of Muslims are Orthodox, with serious intention of seditious acts against the continued existence of present US culture and government law and order, with respect to the Constitution. Islam is definitely not a religion and should not be considered as qualified for protection of religious liberty under the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the continued existence of the United States as in entity of economic power and example of freedom for the world lies in the need to control Islam in the United States.
I call on the US Congress to present a law which would prohibit the immigration of Muslims to the US. For all Muslims entering the US illegally and captured by border control operations, they should be segmented into perceived Orthodox and Unorthodox groups. The Orthodox group should be jailed and the Unorthodox groups immediately deported to their home countries. For those Muslims already here, every impediment should be used by business people to disallow construction of Muslim mosques and training centers, without any interference by the Obama administration, who has previously shown a propensity to actually promote Islam within the US. Wherever possible, purveyors of illegal hallucinogenic drugs used by Muslims, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of US law. In short, we need to outlaw Islam in the US.
The Washington Times also reports that some Muslims of Somalia origin have taken over the state of Minnesota. Following up on the detail, it appears that some Somalia Muslim cabdrivers refuse to carry passengers who may be in noncompliance with Muslim law/culture. This includes passengers who be carrying or may have obviously used alcohol. Somalia Muslim cashiers at a major supermarket have refused to check out bacon. In one case, a large stash of Muslim approved hallucinogenic drug has been discovered.
I have tended to duck this issue of Muslims in the US until now, but these two above items have prompted me to investigate further. Our U.S. Constitution says that we should not discriminate against religion. The question seems to be whether Islam is a religion or a culture. If a religion, we should permit its use in the US. If a culture, and particularly if it is antagonistic or militaristic to the continued operations of the American government and American culture, it should be controlled by federal, state, and municipal law.
With respect to the Washington National Cathedral episode, I have checked the historical prayer services. The preponderance of prayer services at Washington National Cathedral have been Christian-based, meaning prayer services led by representatives of various Christian groups, such as Episcopalians, Methodists, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, etc.. The only prayer service leaders from other religious/cultural groups have been rabbis, representing the Jewish faith.
The obvious question to me was whether Islam religion/culture is similar enough in total content compared to Hebrew religion/culture, to allow representation at the Washington National Cathedral.
Through Internet research, it appears that Islam is more of a culture than that of an actual religion. Islam is a complete way of life. Many scholars agree that Islam impacts every part of life, from eating and sleeping to working and playing. It is not only a personal religion, but also a social one. However, we can also say the same thing about the Hebrew/Jewish culture.
The question then arises as to whether there is a significant difference between Islam culture and Hebrew culture, as to justify the inclusion of one culture's representative in Washington Cathedral prayer service and not the other.
For such consideration, we need to consider the content of the culture, as well as the degree of following. I will get to the content of the cultures shortly, but first touch on the degree of following, which is generally indicated by use of the word Orthodox. An Orthodox follower is a strict adherant to cultural rules. We have Orthodox following in various branches of religion/culture. In Christianity, we even have it in the name of Greek Orthodox. In Hebrew religion/culture, there are Orthodox Jews. In Islam, the closest definition would be jihadists or terrorists.
Consider now the content of Islam culture versus Hebrew culture. Scholars generally agree that the Muslim culture is not based on the Quran but rather on the example set by Mohammed. He was kind to his fellow Muslims, and he was often cruel to non-Muslims, especially if they criticized Islam or hindered its expansion. He was perhaps a typical seventh-century warlord — ordering assassinations of his enemies, torturing people for information, owning slaves, and killing enemies in mass executions — but his example is preserved in writing, and so is the Quranic encouragement to all devout, present-day Muslims to follow his example. In a simplified term, the terrorist activities of Muslims are Orthodox and completely consistent with Mohammed's teaching of the culture. As we look at the Orthodox practice of Hebrew culture, we see no similar militant aspects.
It is also said that the teachings in Islamic mosques and training centers in the US and subsequent external promotion and application to US culture is training in political action, advocating a foreign, fascist political system, preaching hatred toward other religions, and sending funds to foreign movements to support anti-American activities. Such practice would completely disqualify the organizations from religious tax exemption, on the basis that it is a political movement. An even more appropriate term might be that they should be considered organizations of sedititious political action.
The bottom line on all of this is that an unknown percentage of Muslims are Orthodox, with serious intention of seditious acts against the continued existence of present US culture and government law and order, with respect to the Constitution. Islam is definitely not a religion and should not be considered as qualified for protection of religious liberty under the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the continued existence of the United States as in entity of economic power and example of freedom for the world lies in the need to control Islam in the United States.
I call on the US Congress to present a law which would prohibit the immigration of Muslims to the US. For all Muslims entering the US illegally and captured by border control operations, they should be segmented into perceived Orthodox and Unorthodox groups. The Orthodox group should be jailed and the Unorthodox groups immediately deported to their home countries. For those Muslims already here, every impediment should be used by business people to disallow construction of Muslim mosques and training centers, without any interference by the Obama administration, who has previously shown a propensity to actually promote Islam within the US. Wherever possible, purveyors of illegal hallucinogenic drugs used by Muslims, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of US law. In short, we need to outlaw Islam in the US.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Veterans Administration Leadership
On December 8, 2008, Pres. Obama appointed retired U.S. Army General, Eric Shinseki, as Veterans Affairs Seretary. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) previously had a bad reputation in serving the needs of American veterans. Under Shinseki's six year term, the situation degraded further to scandalous proportions. Pres. Obama properly responded by replacing General Shinseki with Robert A McDonald, who was previously Chief Executive Officer of Procter & Gamble.
Some thought that the Veterans Affairs Secretary should be a medical doctor, because much of the VA business involves medical problems of veterans. However, it was clear to me that the VA difficulties were primarily administrative, from a leadership point of view, and the mishandling of medical problems was only ancillary.
The Washington Times has now come up with a headline that according to Robert McDonald: Firings have begun at Veterans Affairs. Secretary McDonald said that firing processes have begun for employees flagged for disciplinary action in the wake of recent issues with the department that have seen veterans shuttled to secret waiting lists, among other things. A newly-announced reorganization of the department, intended to boost customer service for veterans, is the biggest in history, he said. “We can’t change this department unless we change the culture,” Mr. McDonald said on CNN’s “New Day.” “Primary to changing the culture is holding people accountable when they violate our values…if somebody has violated our value of integrity, we’re going to go after and seek their dismissal [or] separation.”
He went on to say that there is a list of about 40 names they report to Congress each week and another list of more than 5,000 names of people they’re seeking disciplinary action against, or who have been disciplined over the last year. A reporter asked whether he had fired any of those those approximately 40 people. “Of course we have,” said McDonald. He said that the law, presumably from Congress, requires that candidates for firing be first put on Administrative Leave, during which time they are receiving full pay without work. A judge then decides what disciplinary procedures should be followed for each case.
I am pleased with the appointment of Robert McDonald, where his previous as CEO of Procter & Gamble allowed him the hiring and firing of various people. However, I now am questioning whether he is being hamstrung by an outdated law established by Congress. It appears that Congress may have established a law making it difficult to fire employees in order to establish a stability of organization. However, that process also protects from firing various persons who are inept in their jobs.
It now behooves Congress to re-examine any such restrictive firing laws in order to put them on the same basis as those once used in private industry and commerce. This is not to say that any governmental change and firing procedures should be exactly equivalent to those now being used in industry and commerce, because through the years the process has been eroded to the point where government has intruded into the private firing process making it almost equally difficult for private and corporate CEOs to properly do their jobs.
Some thought that the Veterans Affairs Secretary should be a medical doctor, because much of the VA business involves medical problems of veterans. However, it was clear to me that the VA difficulties were primarily administrative, from a leadership point of view, and the mishandling of medical problems was only ancillary.
The Washington Times has now come up with a headline that according to Robert McDonald: Firings have begun at Veterans Affairs. Secretary McDonald said that firing processes have begun for employees flagged for disciplinary action in the wake of recent issues with the department that have seen veterans shuttled to secret waiting lists, among other things. A newly-announced reorganization of the department, intended to boost customer service for veterans, is the biggest in history, he said. “We can’t change this department unless we change the culture,” Mr. McDonald said on CNN’s “New Day.” “Primary to changing the culture is holding people accountable when they violate our values…if somebody has violated our value of integrity, we’re going to go after and seek their dismissal [or] separation.”
He went on to say that there is a list of about 40 names they report to Congress each week and another list of more than 5,000 names of people they’re seeking disciplinary action against, or who have been disciplined over the last year. A reporter asked whether he had fired any of those those approximately 40 people. “Of course we have,” said McDonald. He said that the law, presumably from Congress, requires that candidates for firing be first put on Administrative Leave, during which time they are receiving full pay without work. A judge then decides what disciplinary procedures should be followed for each case.
I am pleased with the appointment of Robert McDonald, where his previous as CEO of Procter & Gamble allowed him the hiring and firing of various people. However, I now am questioning whether he is being hamstrung by an outdated law established by Congress. It appears that Congress may have established a law making it difficult to fire employees in order to establish a stability of organization. However, that process also protects from firing various persons who are inept in their jobs.
It now behooves Congress to re-examine any such restrictive firing laws in order to put them on the same basis as those once used in private industry and commerce. This is not to say that any governmental change and firing procedures should be exactly equivalent to those now being used in industry and commerce, because through the years the process has been eroded to the point where government has intruded into the private firing process making it almost equally difficult for private and corporate CEOs to properly do their jobs.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Blimps for Border Control on Illegal Immigrant Entries
The Washington Times says Texas Representative Michael McCaul has proposed transferring blimps used for spying in Afghanistan to the southern US border to control illegal border crossings. Representative McCaul is Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, a pretty responsible job.
However, this is a silly proposal and even a basis for consideration of whether Representative McCaul should continue to hold his position as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
I say it's a silly proposal because Representative McCaul obviously does not have his eye on the bigger picture. He could propose 100 different methods for controlling illegal border crossings, but as long as the Obama Administration wants illegal border crossings and has control of federal homeland security and border control agents, Representative McCaul is whistling in the dark. He doesn't seem to realize that.
We need a congressional leader who will fight the federal government, bringing to the attention of the voting public that the Obama Administration's practice of ignoring immigration laws is detrimental to the country, even to the extent that it could be grounds for Pres. Obama's impeachment.
Republicans may consider a fight for border control as dangerous to obtaining the Latino vote. However, most Latino citizens of the US are for strong law enforcement, which is one of the reasons they came here in the first place. If there is any doubt about this, talk with Marco Rubio.
However, this is a silly proposal and even a basis for consideration of whether Representative McCaul should continue to hold his position as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
I say it's a silly proposal because Representative McCaul obviously does not have his eye on the bigger picture. He could propose 100 different methods for controlling illegal border crossings, but as long as the Obama Administration wants illegal border crossings and has control of federal homeland security and border control agents, Representative McCaul is whistling in the dark. He doesn't seem to realize that.
We need a congressional leader who will fight the federal government, bringing to the attention of the voting public that the Obama Administration's practice of ignoring immigration laws is detrimental to the country, even to the extent that it could be grounds for Pres. Obama's impeachment.
Republicans may consider a fight for border control as dangerous to obtaining the Latino vote. However, most Latino citizens of the US are for strong law enforcement, which is one of the reasons they came here in the first place. If there is any doubt about this, talk with Marco Rubio.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Hillary Clinton and Job Creation
The Washington Times quotes Hillary Clinton as saying, "Not to listen to any anybody who tells you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” She didn't say who does create jobs but the implication is that it is government.
I don't deny that government creates jobs. I have a relative that works for the federal government. Since he draws a paycheck, he has a job and presumably that job have been created by the people who hired him, namely government. In fact, many of us claim that government has created too many jobs and should be strongly cut back.
When I was 14 years old, I got a job work working with my Uncle Bill in the afternoons after the school. Uncle Bill was in the window shade business. Since he paid me, I thought I had a job. He probably thought so too, since my wages were a cost to his business. Since he was the one who hired me, I think we can safely say he created the job. If he did not hire me or anybody else, no job would have been created.
When I was in college, my father got me a job working in a bank at Franklin Square during the summers, when I was not in college. The bank paid me, so in normal terms one could consider that was a job. If the bank had not hired me, no job would have been created. I suppose one could go all the way back to the Constitution, which established that the federal government should develop a monetary system and that subsequently led to all banking, but such thinking is really far-fetched with respect to normal considerations of job creation and payrolls. Such a thought is unworthy of even such a knucklehead as Hillary Clinton.
During World War II I was drafted into the Army. In this case, I agree completely that the government created a job for which it paid me $14 a month. Hillary is on target with this one. Government forced me to work for it.
After the war and graduate school, I got a job with the Rohm & Haas company, a chemical manufacturer. They paid me, so I considered it was a job and the company probably thought so too. The company had the option of not hiring me or anyone else, in which case no job have been created. Therefore, I considered, that the Rohm & Haas company created a job for me. Government did not put the Rohm & Haas company in the chemical business, so I believe I can safely say that government was not involved, other than to take taxes on profits the company made.
All in all, would you like Hillary Clinton to be your next president, with the apparently obtuse thinking that she has?
I don't deny that government creates jobs. I have a relative that works for the federal government. Since he draws a paycheck, he has a job and presumably that job have been created by the people who hired him, namely government. In fact, many of us claim that government has created too many jobs and should be strongly cut back.
When I was 14 years old, I got a job work working with my Uncle Bill in the afternoons after the school. Uncle Bill was in the window shade business. Since he paid me, I thought I had a job. He probably thought so too, since my wages were a cost to his business. Since he was the one who hired me, I think we can safely say he created the job. If he did not hire me or anybody else, no job would have been created.
When I was in college, my father got me a job working in a bank at Franklin Square during the summers, when I was not in college. The bank paid me, so in normal terms one could consider that was a job. If the bank had not hired me, no job would have been created. I suppose one could go all the way back to the Constitution, which established that the federal government should develop a monetary system and that subsequently led to all banking, but such thinking is really far-fetched with respect to normal considerations of job creation and payrolls. Such a thought is unworthy of even such a knucklehead as Hillary Clinton.
During World War II I was drafted into the Army. In this case, I agree completely that the government created a job for which it paid me $14 a month. Hillary is on target with this one. Government forced me to work for it.
After the war and graduate school, I got a job with the Rohm & Haas company, a chemical manufacturer. They paid me, so I considered it was a job and the company probably thought so too. The company had the option of not hiring me or anyone else, in which case no job have been created. Therefore, I considered, that the Rohm & Haas company created a job for me. Government did not put the Rohm & Haas company in the chemical business, so I believe I can safely say that government was not involved, other than to take taxes on profits the company made.
All in all, would you like Hillary Clinton to be your next president, with the apparently obtuse thinking that she has?
Friday, October 17, 2014
CDC Research on Ebola^
This is short, because it does not need to be long. The reference is from the Washington Times.
The CDC knows little about the Ebola virus. For example, CDC does not know how the virus is transmitted from person to person. It does not know what drugs will kill it in an infected person. It does not know the length of time the virus remains virile for transmission to person-to-person. I could go on and on.
The CDC admits to this lack of knowledge and says it was unable to do the necessary research because of budget cuts by Congress in CDC funding. The Washington Times says that during the same time period of budget cuts, millions of dollars were paid in bonuses to CDC employees. In effect, employees were paid bonuses to do nothing on improving CDC's knowledge of the Ebola virus. Need I say more?
The CDC knows little about the Ebola virus. For example, CDC does not know how the virus is transmitted from person to person. It does not know what drugs will kill it in an infected person. It does not know the length of time the virus remains virile for transmission to person-to-person. I could go on and on.
The CDC admits to this lack of knowledge and says it was unable to do the necessary research because of budget cuts by Congress in CDC funding. The Washington Times says that during the same time period of budget cuts, millions of dollars were paid in bonuses to CDC employees. In effect, employees were paid bonuses to do nothing on improving CDC's knowledge of the Ebola virus. Need I say more?
Friday, October 10, 2014
US Traitors
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today asked for unanimous consent on his bill, the Expatriate Terrorist Act of 2014, that would strip Americans who join ISIS of their citizenship.
ISIS is an organization of murderous adherents to a violent medieval ideology. The targets for murder are average American citizens.
A traitor is a person who betrays his country. Some synonyms are: defector, deserter, and informer. Any US citizen who has joined ISIS has done so with the intention of doing harm to the United States and is therefore a traitor. It was apparently Sen. Cruz's intent to deprive such traitors not only of the benefits of US citizenship, but also of their ability to do US harm by parading as legitimate citizens.
Sen. Cruz's Bill got nowhere in the Senate because of opposition by the Democratic majority. It seems clear that the Senate Democrats have intention of protecting such traitors, which allows them to continue to operate against the interests of the United States. With the protection afforded to such traitors, it is also clear that Senate Democrats are complicit in attempts to destroy the United States through application of Muslim ideology specifically intended to murder US citizens.
There have been previous instances of individual prosecution of traitors, but nothing on the scale we see with the number of US citizens joining ISIS and the number of US Senate Democrats and others within the government and the population at large, with the same Muslim ideology.
I have separately written about the culture of violence in the black and poor communities, with no clear understanding of what to do about it because of the large number of lawbreakers. I see a similar situation with Democrats in the Senate, other public officials and the public at large, who are traitorous in their thoughts and actions. There are now so many of them, it is impossible to conceive of a program for correction. In this latter case, education does not seem to be an answer, because these people are in many cases already well-educated. Is it possible to change them through a mind control program somewhat similar to what was used in denaziflying the Germans after World War II?
ISIS is an organization of murderous adherents to a violent medieval ideology. The targets for murder are average American citizens.
A traitor is a person who betrays his country. Some synonyms are: defector, deserter, and informer. Any US citizen who has joined ISIS has done so with the intention of doing harm to the United States and is therefore a traitor. It was apparently Sen. Cruz's intent to deprive such traitors not only of the benefits of US citizenship, but also of their ability to do US harm by parading as legitimate citizens.
Sen. Cruz's Bill got nowhere in the Senate because of opposition by the Democratic majority. It seems clear that the Senate Democrats have intention of protecting such traitors, which allows them to continue to operate against the interests of the United States. With the protection afforded to such traitors, it is also clear that Senate Democrats are complicit in attempts to destroy the United States through application of Muslim ideology specifically intended to murder US citizens.
There have been previous instances of individual prosecution of traitors, but nothing on the scale we see with the number of US citizens joining ISIS and the number of US Senate Democrats and others within the government and the population at large, with the same Muslim ideology.
I have separately written about the culture of violence in the black and poor communities, with no clear understanding of what to do about it because of the large number of lawbreakers. I see a similar situation with Democrats in the Senate, other public officials and the public at large, who are traitorous in their thoughts and actions. There are now so many of them, it is impossible to conceive of a program for correction. In this latter case, education does not seem to be an answer, because these people are in many cases already well-educated. Is it possible to change them through a mind control program somewhat similar to what was used in denaziflying the Germans after World War II?
Violence in Poor and Black Communities
A headline from the Washington Times says, "Chicago concealed carry gun permit law 'disarms' poor, blacks". The implication is that the poor and blacks are being discriminated against. The discrimination is presumably based upon unavailability of firearms to them because of limitation of the concealed carry gun permit law. Nothing could be farther from the truth, when you look at the total picture.
The article goes on to say that in ZIP code area 60624 there have been more homicides, robberies, assaults, thefts and narcotics charges combined than any other ZIP code in Cook County, IL, when measured on a per capita basis. Its population is 98 percent black and averages a median income just above the poverty line. A separate video says that the violence is caused by the populace being deprived of concealed carry gun permits, which cost on average $650.
By comparison, ZIP code area 60464 boasts a negligible crime rate: Only one homicide has been committed in 10 years, according to the most recent state police data. Ninety-six percent of its residents are white, earning an average income of $121,000..
The intended message is that the poor and presumably some blacks are unable to protect themselves, because they can't afford to pay for a concealed carry gun permit. Hogwash!
In the ZIP Code area with the highest crime rate, the atrocities are mostly committed with guns. In other words, the residents are robbing and killing each other with firearms, which are readily available to them and having nothing to do with the concealed carry gun law. Since the residents have these guns illegally, and presumably are concealing them illegally, they start out by being lawbreakers. It is clear that they have no respect for the law and use violence as their way of life.
Contrarily in the high income ZIP Code area, the residents respect the law by legally obtaining firearms and permits for concealed carry. It is highly likely that without a concealed carry gun law, the criminal statistics would still be approximately the same. The low income people would continue to kill and rob each other at gunpoint, while the more wealthy would continue to have lower rates of crime, because they are believers and adhere to the concept of law and order
I'm not sure what we can do about reducing violence in the low income and black communities. Violence there seems to be. A cultural matter difficult to change. Police have been putting perpetrators in jail, but the jails are so full that this is not an obvious solution. The net result has been to reduce the jailing and let the violence continue to take its course.
Is a violent way of life too culturally ingrained to be changed? Education may be a possible solution, but the educational system has its own set of problems, with the likelihood of being unable to deal with this one.
The article goes on to say that in ZIP code area 60624 there have been more homicides, robberies, assaults, thefts and narcotics charges combined than any other ZIP code in Cook County, IL, when measured on a per capita basis. Its population is 98 percent black and averages a median income just above the poverty line. A separate video says that the violence is caused by the populace being deprived of concealed carry gun permits, which cost on average $650.
By comparison, ZIP code area 60464 boasts a negligible crime rate: Only one homicide has been committed in 10 years, according to the most recent state police data. Ninety-six percent of its residents are white, earning an average income of $121,000..
The intended message is that the poor and presumably some blacks are unable to protect themselves, because they can't afford to pay for a concealed carry gun permit. Hogwash!
In the ZIP Code area with the highest crime rate, the atrocities are mostly committed with guns. In other words, the residents are robbing and killing each other with firearms, which are readily available to them and having nothing to do with the concealed carry gun law. Since the residents have these guns illegally, and presumably are concealing them illegally, they start out by being lawbreakers. It is clear that they have no respect for the law and use violence as their way of life.
Contrarily in the high income ZIP Code area, the residents respect the law by legally obtaining firearms and permits for concealed carry. It is highly likely that without a concealed carry gun law, the criminal statistics would still be approximately the same. The low income people would continue to kill and rob each other at gunpoint, while the more wealthy would continue to have lower rates of crime, because they are believers and adhere to the concept of law and order
I'm not sure what we can do about reducing violence in the low income and black communities. Violence there seems to be. A cultural matter difficult to change. Police have been putting perpetrators in jail, but the jails are so full that this is not an obvious solution. The net result has been to reduce the jailing and let the violence continue to take its course.
Is a violent way of life too culturally ingrained to be changed? Education may be a possible solution, but the educational system has its own set of problems, with the likelihood of being unable to deal with this one.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Socialist
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont does not understand economics.
In a recent newsletter, he is bemoaning the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. He looks at this from a lifestyle perspective. Presumably, a billionaire has 1000 different chairs, while an average middle-class person has one chair. He neglects the fact that a billionaire has only one butt, which is the same as an average middle-class person, and he can sit in only one chair at a time. Or for another analogy, a billionaire presumably eats several thousand times more food than the average middle-class person. All of this is obviously ridiculous. Either, as I said earlier Bernie does not understand economics or he's appealing to the middle-class to outlaw billionaires; i.e. establish socialism.
The fact is that past a certain point of economic capability there is no lifestyle advantage in having a lot of money. I don't want a yacht. It's too much trouble. It might be nice to have somebody serve me iced tea, but I can get that in a restaurant. If I want to see water at the same time, I can find a waterfront restaurant or take a cruise. The cruise ship business is big. Lots of people go on cruises, and they are by no means all billionaires.
If one is a billionaire, he has responsibilities. He owns substantial portions of companies. He is obligated to run those companies in a constructive manner, so that they can meet the payroll to supply employees with the necessary funds for food, send their kids to college andhelp buy the family boat or RV. In spite of what Bernie Sanders may imply, being a billionaire is not all fun and games.
If it's not all fun and games, what is the advantage of being a billionaire? The answer is simple. It's power. Having lots of money allows a person to do big things, such as establish a national irrigation systems, improve flood control, or pour advertising money into swinging elections. Is there something wrong with swinging elections? Most people will say yes, but all will agree that billionaires are probably not stupid or they would not be billionaires. This would then lead to the question of whether standard elections should be left to the very limited and demonstrated knowledge or lack thereof of the average voter, or should election judgments be made on a more rational and knowledgeable basis.
Bernie Sanders can continue to tout socialism, which is obtainable by an average low information voter coming to the polls with the intention of how best he can fill his pockets with money. However, any such result of that voter action is nonsustainable. Socialism has been proven time and again to be a complete failure, with the unfortunate pain of having it fail over a period of time. It's in the same category as everybody is nice and there really are no bad people. That's a dream state of unreality. We have to look at the world as it is. Some billionaires may do wrong with the power, but most do not. I say hooray for billionaires as a class. We need more of them, with their ability to continue building this great country.
In a recent newsletter, he is bemoaning the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. He looks at this from a lifestyle perspective. Presumably, a billionaire has 1000 different chairs, while an average middle-class person has one chair. He neglects the fact that a billionaire has only one butt, which is the same as an average middle-class person, and he can sit in only one chair at a time. Or for another analogy, a billionaire presumably eats several thousand times more food than the average middle-class person. All of this is obviously ridiculous. Either, as I said earlier Bernie does not understand economics or he's appealing to the middle-class to outlaw billionaires; i.e. establish socialism.
The fact is that past a certain point of economic capability there is no lifestyle advantage in having a lot of money. I don't want a yacht. It's too much trouble. It might be nice to have somebody serve me iced tea, but I can get that in a restaurant. If I want to see water at the same time, I can find a waterfront restaurant or take a cruise. The cruise ship business is big. Lots of people go on cruises, and they are by no means all billionaires.
If one is a billionaire, he has responsibilities. He owns substantial portions of companies. He is obligated to run those companies in a constructive manner, so that they can meet the payroll to supply employees with the necessary funds for food, send their kids to college andhelp buy the family boat or RV. In spite of what Bernie Sanders may imply, being a billionaire is not all fun and games.
If it's not all fun and games, what is the advantage of being a billionaire? The answer is simple. It's power. Having lots of money allows a person to do big things, such as establish a national irrigation systems, improve flood control, or pour advertising money into swinging elections. Is there something wrong with swinging elections? Most people will say yes, but all will agree that billionaires are probably not stupid or they would not be billionaires. This would then lead to the question of whether standard elections should be left to the very limited and demonstrated knowledge or lack thereof of the average voter, or should election judgments be made on a more rational and knowledgeable basis.
Bernie Sanders can continue to tout socialism, which is obtainable by an average low information voter coming to the polls with the intention of how best he can fill his pockets with money. However, any such result of that voter action is nonsustainable. Socialism has been proven time and again to be a complete failure, with the unfortunate pain of having it fail over a period of time. It's in the same category as everybody is nice and there really are no bad people. That's a dream state of unreality. We have to look at the world as it is. Some billionaires may do wrong with the power, but most do not. I say hooray for billionaires as a class. We need more of them, with their ability to continue building this great country.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Sen. Cruz's (TX) Newsletter
Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your newsletter September 19 and congratulate you on two points
You want to strip Americans who join ISIS of their US citizenship. The background on this is Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part III › § 1481, which says, "(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality if entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state, if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States".
The major catch here is that the offender must have intention of relinquishing his United States nationality, which is difficult to prove. Obviously, the law needs improvement. We need to specify that the mere action of operating in any foreign or domestic organization which has a stated intention or completed actions to harm the US shall lose his citizenship.
You also said that you could not vote for the Continuing Resolution, which funds Obama’s Amnesty, Obamacare, and military operations in Syria not authorized by Congress. Other than my hearty congratulations for your position, my only other comment is that you have a single vote, and you must in some manner convince a majority of the Senators to follow your lead. The question is basically whether Obama or Congress is running the country.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your newsletter September 19 and congratulate you on two points
You want to strip Americans who join ISIS of their US citizenship. The background on this is Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part III › § 1481, which says, "(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality if entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state, if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States".
The major catch here is that the offender must have intention of relinquishing his United States nationality, which is difficult to prove. Obviously, the law needs improvement. We need to specify that the mere action of operating in any foreign or domestic organization which has a stated intention or completed actions to harm the US shall lose his citizenship.
You also said that you could not vote for the Continuing Resolution, which funds Obama’s Amnesty, Obamacare, and military operations in Syria not authorized by Congress. Other than my hearty congratulations for your position, my only other comment is that you have a single vote, and you must in some manner convince a majority of the Senators to follow your lead. The question is basically whether Obama or Congress is running the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
