The Washington Times says that Senator Rand Paul, Gov. Chris Christie, and Gov. Rick Perry are leading the way to a Republican platform which would legalize marijuana.
I agree with the proposal.
Any federal law which restricts a person from taking into his body any substance he desires, is an infringement of personal liberties.
Conditional to that, I now have no respect for persons who use drugs or other substances, which inhibit their performance and responsibilities as citizens. I will maintain that view with respect to use of alcohol, any performance-enhancing substances, excess of painkillers, and recreational substances. In addition to alcohol, these would include anything which is generally accepted as addictive. Examples would be all opiates, such as heroine, codeine, or hydrocodone, and methamphetamine, and marijuana.
Persons who use these substances do not qualify as employable by me, nor qualify as my friends. In effect I have no contact, nor will I have any contact, with such persons to either rehabilitate them or work with them in any way.
While this is my personal position on the subject, I also feel that there are ramifications to the legalization of marijuana and any of the other drugs mentioned above. That is, persons who use these drugs and become subsequently addicted should not qualify for taxpayer funding in order to go through a rehabilitation program. Since they would have put themselves into this position by own volition, they can get out by themselves or suffer the consequences of continued addiction. The consequences of addiction are generally well-known to the public, through personal experience with acquaintances, family members, the news media, and movies.
Persons who want to move in this direction for their own reasons and subsequently develop great difficulty will obtain no help from me personally, or if I can avoid it, as a taxpayer. They will only receive my disgust and ridicule.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Terrorism and Communism
Terrorism and Communism! They are different, but both are threats to the livelihood of Americans.
Terrorism may kill several thousand Americans, as demonstrated in the 9/11 Twin Towers attack.
Communism will destroy the traditional livelihood of Americans, by eliminating personal liberties including private property rights and opportunities for individual economic growth. This will result in a significant reduction in American lifestyle.
For the US homeland, we spend $110 billion per year on terrorism control.
For US Communism control in the US, we spend zero dollars per year. This lack of control has led to large increases in communistic practices within the US. Deprivation of personal liberties is a constantly recurring theme in several TV and radio talk media. Many Democrats now adhere to Communist principles.
Let's also take a look at the projected cost for the long-term. Terrorism control at $110 billion per year can likely continue indefinitely and be effective. Lack of any Communist control will lead to the development of a completely Communistic government, with the American public sinking deeper into privation. The eventual way out would be revolution, with a militant response which could kill several million Americans.
Internationally, we attempt to control terrorism in various foreign countries. We engage in an Afghanistan war. We involve ourselves in the Syrian civil war. We pay substantial amounts to Pakistan and Egypt for their so-called collaboration. But, we spend nothing and make no effort to control Communism in countries such as Cuba and North Korea.
It seems to me that we have our control efforts out of balance. We should be fighting domestic Communism. We cannot afford to combat foreign Communism and must remain with the status quo, leaving that problem to the people of the foreign countries involved.
Terrorism may kill several thousand Americans, as demonstrated in the 9/11 Twin Towers attack.
Communism will destroy the traditional livelihood of Americans, by eliminating personal liberties including private property rights and opportunities for individual economic growth. This will result in a significant reduction in American lifestyle.
For the US homeland, we spend $110 billion per year on terrorism control.
For US Communism control in the US, we spend zero dollars per year. This lack of control has led to large increases in communistic practices within the US. Deprivation of personal liberties is a constantly recurring theme in several TV and radio talk media. Many Democrats now adhere to Communist principles.
Let's also take a look at the projected cost for the long-term. Terrorism control at $110 billion per year can likely continue indefinitely and be effective. Lack of any Communist control will lead to the development of a completely Communistic government, with the American public sinking deeper into privation. The eventual way out would be revolution, with a militant response which could kill several million Americans.
Internationally, we attempt to control terrorism in various foreign countries. We engage in an Afghanistan war. We involve ourselves in the Syrian civil war. We pay substantial amounts to Pakistan and Egypt for their so-called collaboration. But, we spend nothing and make no effort to control Communism in countries such as Cuba and North Korea.
It seems to me that we have our control efforts out of balance. We should be fighting domestic Communism. We cannot afford to combat foreign Communism and must remain with the status quo, leaving that problem to the people of the foreign countries involved.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Congressional Retirement Benefits
Open Email to Congress:
Dear Representatives and Senators,
As you know, the US is roughly $17 trillion in debt, and we annually spend more than income, so that the debt increases. It is also apparent to most people, and I am sure to you, that this cannot continue indefinitely. Previous attempts to make a change have been futile, as indicated by the latest budget still being considerably out of balance.
The situation has resulted from many years of overspending by Congress, with the approval and help of several Presidents.
I believe that Congressional overspending is based primarily on Congress members being motivated by a desire to remain in office and continue to receive the benefits of that office. That motivation is reflected in "pork" spending to obtain reelection votes from local constituents. It is likely also reflected in receiving significant donations for campaign funding from special interest groups.
There has been talk over the years concerning term limits for Congress, which would hopefully eliminate overspending based on the incentive for reelection. Establishment of term limits would require a Congressiona l bill satisfactory to members of both the House and the Senate. However, that is an unrealistic, approach since Congressional members have motivation to continue with present unlimited terms. Limited terms would be disadvantageous to the members, and it could hardly be expected that they would be in favor of it.
Another tack has been mentioned to establish congressional term limits, and that is an amendment to the Constitution. While this is theoretically possible, it is likely unworkable, because of its complexity including public pressure from generally disinterested voters..
I now I suggest a third alternative, which might be a motivating factor for congressional members to self-control their terms of office. I suggest that Congress establish a generous pension program for its members. This might be a matter of a retirement pension starting in any age, after four years of service and amounting to 110% of the highest annual working salary. The annual pension would include upward cost-of-living adjustments and would continue through life. If a spouse is involved, the spouse would then receive an annual payment of 80% of the original Congressional members pension until death. The pension would also be tax-free.
The objective of the program would be to encourage the retirement of 90+ % of Congressional members after four years of service. If the above pension benefit would appear to be insufficient based upon a poll of Congressional members, the amount of the proposed pension should be increased incrementally by 10 percentage points, until the package is attractive to 90+ percent of the members.
When the pension package has been approved by a Congressiona l bill from both the House and Senate, it is likely that the President will sign it.
One may speculate that the proposed pension program would be unpopular with the voting public, but that is essentially of no significance. Most of the voting public will be unconcerned and those that may be concerned can do essentially nothing to stop it. It is a program that lies completely in the hands of Congress and the President to institute.
Dear Representatives and Senators,
As you know, the US is roughly $17 trillion in debt, and we annually spend more than income, so that the debt increases. It is also apparent to most people, and I am sure to you, that this cannot continue indefinitely. Previous attempts to make a change have been futile, as indicated by the latest budget still being considerably out of balance.
The situation has resulted from many years of overspending by Congress, with the approval and help of several Presidents.
I believe that Congressional overspending is based primarily on Congress members being motivated by a desire to remain in office and continue to receive the benefits of that office. That motivation is reflected in "pork" spending to obtain reelection votes from local constituents. It is likely also reflected in receiving significant donations for campaign funding from special interest groups.
There has been talk over the years concerning term limits for Congress, which would hopefully eliminate overspending based on the incentive for reelection. Establishment of term limits would require a Congressiona l bill satisfactory to members of both the House and the Senate. However, that is an unrealistic, approach since Congressional members have motivation to continue with present unlimited terms. Limited terms would be disadvantageous to the members, and it could hardly be expected that they would be in favor of it.
Another tack has been mentioned to establish congressional term limits, and that is an amendment to the Constitution. While this is theoretically possible, it is likely unworkable, because of its complexity including public pressure from generally disinterested voters..
I now I suggest a third alternative, which might be a motivating factor for congressional members to self-control their terms of office. I suggest that Congress establish a generous pension program for its members. This might be a matter of a retirement pension starting in any age, after four years of service and amounting to 110% of the highest annual working salary. The annual pension would include upward cost-of-living adjustments and would continue through life. If a spouse is involved, the spouse would then receive an annual payment of 80% of the original Congressional members pension until death. The pension would also be tax-free.
The objective of the program would be to encourage the retirement of 90+ % of Congressional members after four years of service. If the above pension benefit would appear to be insufficient based upon a poll of Congressional members, the amount of the proposed pension should be increased incrementally by 10 percentage points, until the package is attractive to 90+ percent of the members.
When the pension package has been approved by a Congressiona l bill from both the House and Senate, it is likely that the President will sign it.
One may speculate that the proposed pension program would be unpopular with the voting public, but that is essentially of no significance. Most of the voting public will be unconcerned and those that may be concerned can do essentially nothing to stop it. It is a program that lies completely in the hands of Congress and the President to institute.
Catching Pigs
Open Email to Congress:
Dear Representatives and Senators,
The following little story on "pigs" describes where you and many previous Presidents have been leading us "pigs".
CATCHING PIGS
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.
In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?" The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke.
"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.
When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side.
The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again.
You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the "free" corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, now Obamacare, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it for yourself.
Quote for today:
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
Dear Representatives and Senators,
The following little story on "pigs" describes where you and many previous Presidents have been leading us "pigs".
CATCHING PIGS
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.
In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?" The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke.
"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.
When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side.
The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again.
You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the "free" corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, now Obamacare, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it for yourself.
Quote for today:
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
Monday, January 27, 2014
Pres. Obama's Platform for Tuesday Night
Open Email to Congress:
Dear Representatives and Senators,
According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama will ask for the following in his Tuesday night State of the Union speech, and on which I also comment:
INCREASE IN FEDERALLY MANDATED MINIMUM WAGE. We must oppose this. It's a job killer. Higher minimum wages force business owners toward more automation, with a decrease in jobs. It also removes the opportunity for younger employees entering commercial/industrial markets to learn their trade and grow to positions of higher worth and salary.
Apprenticeships have been common throughout the historical development of industry. Apprentices were paid a bare minimum for subsistence, but worked to become accomplished artisans, with accompanying monetary rewards.
We still use a form of apprenticeship in our graduate school educational programs. Graduate students in research and teaching had been paid at subsistence levels. This has only changed recently with the dumping of billions of dollars in taxpayer money into research programs of universities.
College football is another example of current apprenticeship. College football players have little benefits, but have an opportunity to gain experience and expertise to become highly paid professionals.
EXTENSION OF LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. We must oppose this. The record shows that the longer a person has remained unemployed, the less likelihood that he will ever be employed. In effect, an extension of long-term unemployment benefits will decrease employment and increase the taxpayer costs for subsistence of so-called "indigents".
It is also likely that most unemployed persons would rather have a better paying job, than subsistence unemployment benefits. As mentioned previously, extending unemployment benefits works against that desire and opportunity for employment.
Termination of long-term unemployment benefits would create hardship among the unemployed, but most times the bad taste of the medicine, is outweighed by the ultimate benefit. Reduction of individual unemployment income by termination of long-term benefits, requires some action on the part of the non-recipients. This could be moving in with other family members, taking low-paying or part-time jobs, and cutting expenses such as cell phones. There is also welfare available, including homeless shelters, and food banks.
ISSUING MORE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
We must oppose this. The current record for presidential executive orders shows that in large part they are disadvantageous to the economy and employment.
However, the current constitutional/legal system does not allow the limitation of presidential executive orders. The only defense for the continuance is a loud verbal response on the part of the opposition, with the hope and expectation that control will be obtained by public support against the President and his orders.
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM.
We must oppose this. We already have adequate immigration laws. The problem with our immigration system is that the laws have not been previously nor currently enforced.
Any attempts at congressional immigration reform will be further disadvantageous to adherence of current law. A democratically controlled Senate and Congress, with marginal support of House Democrats, would likely lead to an amnesty program, which is more clearly defined as a pardon for immigration lawbreakers.
This will leave a few million illegal immigrants in suspension, but they have been for several years without any dire effects on them or the economy. Remaining with the status quo discourages further illegal immigration and decreases economic opportunity for present illegals.
This situation must eventually be cleared up through the deportation of illegals, combined with opportunity to stay with penalties. However, now is not the time.
FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY TO COMPLETE TRADE DEALS IN ASIA AND EUROPE.
We must oppose this. The expected trade deals with Asia and Europe would reduce import taxes on export and import goods.
A quick check on nonperishable goods, such as clothing and other hard items, shows that we already have in the US marketplace a more than ample supply of foreign manufactured goods. We don't need more. We need to replace those goods with American-made goods, with the subsequent development of US jobs.
American chemical companies have been promoting this deal, because they have a great many foreign manufacturing plants and need to import those products to the US at low cost. Foreign manufacturing by US companies is reasonable to supply the manufactured products to local foreign markets, but not for export back to the US.
With respect to low-cost raw materials in foreign countries, the concentration has been on oil and natural gas. However, the US has made available to basic chemical companies a large supply of those raw materials at low cost in the US, through francking technology. Many US chemical companies have seen the benefit of US manufacture and are moving their operations back to the US. This should continue.
With respect to exports from the US, US manufacturers can supply quality goods at low cost probably better than any other country. We don't need a reduction in foreign custom duties in order to remain competitive.
EXPANDED CHILD TAX CREDITS. We must oppose this. In the present society, child income tax credits probably do not encourage people to have more children. Children are born by a process of plan, usually by a more well-to-do segment of society, or lack of birth control among the "less fortunate". Children now born from planning are significantly reduced, while children born to the "less fortunate" are significantly increased. This leads to a negative change in societal economics, wherein, the less fortunate and presumably the less capable are increased. Income taxes are likely not a factor.
However, other taxpayer-paid benefits, such as for childcare, likely do more harm than good. The theory of childcare subsidy is that when a mother and father are able to drop off the children to a childcare center, which is subsidized by taxpayers, they will be able to hold down jobs leading to self-support and general improvement of the US economy. Experience has shown that this is far from the fact.
With various combinations of childcare support, the composition of the "less fortunate" family has significantly changed to a mother and children, with no domestic father. This leaves the children to be raised completely in a matriarchal atmosphere. This is not to say that mothers are poor at child raising. Mothers and fathers have emotional differences and practices in handling children. A child raised only by mother will obviously be deficient in the subsequent real world of mixed sexes. Up to the 1960s, children were raised by both mothers and fathers, with mothers not working outside the home during the early child years. It was proven to be a good system as compared to our current societal program, which is shown to lead to a considerable increase in social deviants evidenced by significant increases in crime.
Dear Representatives and Senators,
According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama will ask for the following in his Tuesday night State of the Union speech, and on which I also comment:
INCREASE IN FEDERALLY MANDATED MINIMUM WAGE. We must oppose this. It's a job killer. Higher minimum wages force business owners toward more automation, with a decrease in jobs. It also removes the opportunity for younger employees entering commercial/industrial markets to learn their trade and grow to positions of higher worth and salary.
Apprenticeships have been common throughout the historical development of industry. Apprentices were paid a bare minimum for subsistence, but worked to become accomplished artisans, with accompanying monetary rewards.
We still use a form of apprenticeship in our graduate school educational programs. Graduate students in research and teaching had been paid at subsistence levels. This has only changed recently with the dumping of billions of dollars in taxpayer money into research programs of universities.
College football is another example of current apprenticeship. College football players have little benefits, but have an opportunity to gain experience and expertise to become highly paid professionals.
EXTENSION OF LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. We must oppose this. The record shows that the longer a person has remained unemployed, the less likelihood that he will ever be employed. In effect, an extension of long-term unemployment benefits will decrease employment and increase the taxpayer costs for subsistence of so-called "indigents".
It is also likely that most unemployed persons would rather have a better paying job, than subsistence unemployment benefits. As mentioned previously, extending unemployment benefits works against that desire and opportunity for employment.
Termination of long-term unemployment benefits would create hardship among the unemployed, but most times the bad taste of the medicine, is outweighed by the ultimate benefit. Reduction of individual unemployment income by termination of long-term benefits, requires some action on the part of the non-recipients. This could be moving in with other family members, taking low-paying or part-time jobs, and cutting expenses such as cell phones. There is also welfare available, including homeless shelters, and food banks.
ISSUING MORE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
We must oppose this. The current record for presidential executive orders shows that in large part they are disadvantageous to the economy and employment.
However, the current constitutional/legal system does not allow the limitation of presidential executive orders. The only defense for the continuance is a loud verbal response on the part of the opposition, with the hope and expectation that control will be obtained by public support against the President and his orders.
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM.
We must oppose this. We already have adequate immigration laws. The problem with our immigration system is that the laws have not been previously nor currently enforced.
Any attempts at congressional immigration reform will be further disadvantageous to adherence of current law. A democratically controlled Senate and Congress, with marginal support of House Democrats, would likely lead to an amnesty program, which is more clearly defined as a pardon for immigration lawbreakers.
This will leave a few million illegal immigrants in suspension, but they have been for several years without any dire effects on them or the economy. Remaining with the status quo discourages further illegal immigration and decreases economic opportunity for present illegals.
This situation must eventually be cleared up through the deportation of illegals, combined with opportunity to stay with penalties. However, now is not the time.
FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY TO COMPLETE TRADE DEALS IN ASIA AND EUROPE.
We must oppose this. The expected trade deals with Asia and Europe would reduce import taxes on export and import goods.
A quick check on nonperishable goods, such as clothing and other hard items, shows that we already have in the US marketplace a more than ample supply of foreign manufactured goods. We don't need more. We need to replace those goods with American-made goods, with the subsequent development of US jobs.
American chemical companies have been promoting this deal, because they have a great many foreign manufacturing plants and need to import those products to the US at low cost. Foreign manufacturing by US companies is reasonable to supply the manufactured products to local foreign markets, but not for export back to the US.
With respect to low-cost raw materials in foreign countries, the concentration has been on oil and natural gas. However, the US has made available to basic chemical companies a large supply of those raw materials at low cost in the US, through francking technology. Many US chemical companies have seen the benefit of US manufacture and are moving their operations back to the US. This should continue.
With respect to exports from the US, US manufacturers can supply quality goods at low cost probably better than any other country. We don't need a reduction in foreign custom duties in order to remain competitive.
EXPANDED CHILD TAX CREDITS. We must oppose this. In the present society, child income tax credits probably do not encourage people to have more children. Children are born by a process of plan, usually by a more well-to-do segment of society, or lack of birth control among the "less fortunate". Children now born from planning are significantly reduced, while children born to the "less fortunate" are significantly increased. This leads to a negative change in societal economics, wherein, the less fortunate and presumably the less capable are increased. Income taxes are likely not a factor.
However, other taxpayer-paid benefits, such as for childcare, likely do more harm than good. The theory of childcare subsidy is that when a mother and father are able to drop off the children to a childcare center, which is subsidized by taxpayers, they will be able to hold down jobs leading to self-support and general improvement of the US economy. Experience has shown that this is far from the fact.
With various combinations of childcare support, the composition of the "less fortunate" family has significantly changed to a mother and children, with no domestic father. This leaves the children to be raised completely in a matriarchal atmosphere. This is not to say that mothers are poor at child raising. Mothers and fathers have emotional differences and practices in handling children. A child raised only by mother will obviously be deficient in the subsequent real world of mixed sexes. Up to the 1960s, children were raised by both mothers and fathers, with mothers not working outside the home during the early child years. It was proven to be a good system as compared to our current societal program, which is shown to lead to a considerable increase in social deviants evidenced by significant increases in crime.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
American Held in North Korea
Open Email to:
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
The Washington Times says the North Korean Administration has signaled that it will negotiate the release of an American jailed there are on "crimes against the state".
With that signal, it is clear that the North Korean Administration wants financial help. In this attempt to show at compassion, they hope to obtain it from us. Before we fall for this dodge, let's look at a few facts.
North Korea has only two major policies; Excel in atomic weaponry including its delivery by rockets and maintain control of its people. To do that, they need money.
Now let's look back at the Cold War. Pres. Reagan developed a program to force the collapse of the Soviet Union. That program involved forcing the Soviet Union into a competition on atomic weaponry. The US built hydrogen bombs in great quantities and made no secret of its operation. Based on the supposed Mutually Assured Destruction philosophy present at the time, the Soviets were forced to compete. The US built many thousands of unnecessary atomic bombs at great expense, but it could economically afford it without straining the lifestyle of the American people. The Soviets could not. Placing their limited assets in excess atomic weaponry, forced Soviet citizens into semi-privatization, with the potential for revolt. The Soviet Union began collapsing in stages. The well-known fall of the Berlin Wall was only one stage in that collapse.
Similarly, the North Korean Administration has been placing most of its assets on atomic weaponry, and the North Korean people have suffered and continue to suffer from privatization. The North Korean Administration collapse has not occurred, because of strong martial control on its public, but this cannot go on indefinitely. If placed in a complete starvation mode, the North Korean people will revolt, even at great death cost, in order to overthrow their government.
Now comes the US position. If the US government, out of compassion, decides to help the North Korean people by sending money, food, clothing, housing materials, or anything similar, the North Korean Administration will take it from the people and convert it as an asset for continued development of atomic weaponry and delivery. In simple terms, every dollar that the US sends in any form to North Korea will end up in their atomic program against the United States. There is no way that the US can help the North Korean people, other to help them starve to a point of revolt.
However, other countries may desire to come to the aid of the North Korean people through their own compassion. These countries may involve Europe or even other countries in Southeast Asia. Our policy toward these other countries should be to convince them that any aid will only perpetuate an atomic threat not only to the United States but other countries of the world.
The situation with respect to China is somewhat different. The Korean War many years ago came to a stalemate, not because the US was unable to defeat the North Korean military, but rather because it was unable to defeat the combination of Chinese and North Korean military. The Chinese government may still desire to perpetuate North Korea in its present form, including its atomic threat to the world, but it is not all that clear. We need to follow a policy of non-assistance and allow the Chinese government to do whatever it will concerning North Korea. Chances are high that it will give up support.
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
The Washington Times says the North Korean Administration has signaled that it will negotiate the release of an American jailed there are on "crimes against the state".
With that signal, it is clear that the North Korean Administration wants financial help. In this attempt to show at compassion, they hope to obtain it from us. Before we fall for this dodge, let's look at a few facts.
North Korea has only two major policies; Excel in atomic weaponry including its delivery by rockets and maintain control of its people. To do that, they need money.
Now let's look back at the Cold War. Pres. Reagan developed a program to force the collapse of the Soviet Union. That program involved forcing the Soviet Union into a competition on atomic weaponry. The US built hydrogen bombs in great quantities and made no secret of its operation. Based on the supposed Mutually Assured Destruction philosophy present at the time, the Soviets were forced to compete. The US built many thousands of unnecessary atomic bombs at great expense, but it could economically afford it without straining the lifestyle of the American people. The Soviets could not. Placing their limited assets in excess atomic weaponry, forced Soviet citizens into semi-privatization, with the potential for revolt. The Soviet Union began collapsing in stages. The well-known fall of the Berlin Wall was only one stage in that collapse.
Similarly, the North Korean Administration has been placing most of its assets on atomic weaponry, and the North Korean people have suffered and continue to suffer from privatization. The North Korean Administration collapse has not occurred, because of strong martial control on its public, but this cannot go on indefinitely. If placed in a complete starvation mode, the North Korean people will revolt, even at great death cost, in order to overthrow their government.
Now comes the US position. If the US government, out of compassion, decides to help the North Korean people by sending money, food, clothing, housing materials, or anything similar, the North Korean Administration will take it from the people and convert it as an asset for continued development of atomic weaponry and delivery. In simple terms, every dollar that the US sends in any form to North Korea will end up in their atomic program against the United States. There is no way that the US can help the North Korean people, other to help them starve to a point of revolt.
However, other countries may desire to come to the aid of the North Korean people through their own compassion. These countries may involve Europe or even other countries in Southeast Asia. Our policy toward these other countries should be to convince them that any aid will only perpetuate an atomic threat not only to the United States but other countries of the world.
The situation with respect to China is somewhat different. The Korean War many years ago came to a stalemate, not because the US was unable to defeat the North Korean military, but rather because it was unable to defeat the combination of Chinese and North Korean military. The Chinese government may still desire to perpetuate North Korea in its present form, including its atomic threat to the world, but it is not all that clear. We need to follow a policy of non-assistance and allow the Chinese government to do whatever it will concerning North Korea. Chances are high that it will give up support.
Sen. Cruz (TX) on Pres. Obama
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I refer to your newsletter, "The News with Sen. Cruz - January 24, 2014", in which you cover five questions you would ask Pres. Obama, plus a number of miscellaneous items. I comment only on the five questions as follows:
1. Will the President allow the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to fully investigate the IRS’s illegal targeting of conservatives?
I expect to Pres. will ignore the question, since he has no incentive to respond. If he had to respond, he would possibly say "no", which he knows will be unpopular. Therefore, another reason to not respond. Or, he might say "yes" and then appoint a prosecutor who is Atty. Gen. Holder's brother.
I suggest an alternate approach, which is that Congress should appoint a special prosecutor.
2. Will the President act to ensure that the privacy of law-abiding citizens is protected from unjustifiable violations by arms of the federal government such as the NSA, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Health and Human Services?
The President will likely respond favorably to this question, because it would be the political thing to do. However, based on his previous track record, you can be sure that he would have no intention of following through.
3. Will the President recognize that his economic policies have failed to create the millions of jobs that he promised and have, instead, reduced the labor force participation rate to its lowest level in decades? Will he commit to commonsense, job-creating policies such as the immediate authorization of the Keystone Pipeline, a moratorium on new regulations, and fundamental tax reform for every American?
The President will likely respond favorably to the first part of the question, in the context that we still have very considerable unemployment, because Congress has not made enough [financial] effort to alleviate the problem. He will also be much in favor of job creating policies, but within environmental limits, which would not be detrimental to the health and welfare of the American public.
He will agree with your need for fundamental tax reform, including especially higher tax rates on the "rich". He will not try to eliminate special benefits for favorite groups, because it is part of his power base. However, he will not admit to same and will take no action to make appropriate changes.
4. Will the President call on Congress to form a Joint Select Committee to finally discover the truth of why four Americans perished in a preventable terrorist attack in Benghazi 16 months ago?
The Pres. will ignore this question, as he has for the last 16 months. He has no incentive to reply, because he knows that any reply will tend to make his administration look bad.
The alternate action is to have Congress established the Joint Select Committee.
5. Will the President finally recognize that it was a mistake to ram through Obamacare on a party-line vote and that it is -- right now -- hurting millions of Americans? Will he take real responsibility for misleading the American people when he falsely promised “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” and “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? Will he acknowledge that he doesn’t have the power to unilaterally rewrite the health law for powerful favored interests such as big business and Congress? And will he finally work with Congress to repeal Obamacare and start over, adopting instead reforms that will make healthcare more personal, portable, and affordable?
The President will likely respond to this, ignoring the "like your Dr." and "keep your doctor" aspects. He will claim that Obamacare will be good for the American public and that we've just not had enough time to see its advantages.
Sen. Cruz, posing these questions to the President is an effort to work with him. Congress has had five years to work with Pres. Obama with no significant success. The reasons are that Pres. Obama has a complete Marxist philosophy, while Congress has only a partial Marxist philosophy. The sooner Congress recognizes that it is impossible to work with this President, and that every effort should be made to impeach him and remove him from office, the better.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I refer to your newsletter, "The News with Sen. Cruz - January 24, 2014", in which you cover five questions you would ask Pres. Obama, plus a number of miscellaneous items. I comment only on the five questions as follows:
1. Will the President allow the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to fully investigate the IRS’s illegal targeting of conservatives?
I expect to Pres. will ignore the question, since he has no incentive to respond. If he had to respond, he would possibly say "no", which he knows will be unpopular. Therefore, another reason to not respond. Or, he might say "yes" and then appoint a prosecutor who is Atty. Gen. Holder's brother.
I suggest an alternate approach, which is that Congress should appoint a special prosecutor.
2. Will the President act to ensure that the privacy of law-abiding citizens is protected from unjustifiable violations by arms of the federal government such as the NSA, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Health and Human Services?
The President will likely respond favorably to this question, because it would be the political thing to do. However, based on his previous track record, you can be sure that he would have no intention of following through.
3. Will the President recognize that his economic policies have failed to create the millions of jobs that he promised and have, instead, reduced the labor force participation rate to its lowest level in decades? Will he commit to commonsense, job-creating policies such as the immediate authorization of the Keystone Pipeline, a moratorium on new regulations, and fundamental tax reform for every American?
The President will likely respond favorably to the first part of the question, in the context that we still have very considerable unemployment, because Congress has not made enough [financial] effort to alleviate the problem. He will also be much in favor of job creating policies, but within environmental limits, which would not be detrimental to the health and welfare of the American public.
He will agree with your need for fundamental tax reform, including especially higher tax rates on the "rich". He will not try to eliminate special benefits for favorite groups, because it is part of his power base. However, he will not admit to same and will take no action to make appropriate changes.
4. Will the President call on Congress to form a Joint Select Committee to finally discover the truth of why four Americans perished in a preventable terrorist attack in Benghazi 16 months ago?
The Pres. will ignore this question, as he has for the last 16 months. He has no incentive to reply, because he knows that any reply will tend to make his administration look bad.
The alternate action is to have Congress established the Joint Select Committee.
5. Will the President finally recognize that it was a mistake to ram through Obamacare on a party-line vote and that it is -- right now -- hurting millions of Americans? Will he take real responsibility for misleading the American people when he falsely promised “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” and “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? Will he acknowledge that he doesn’t have the power to unilaterally rewrite the health law for powerful favored interests such as big business and Congress? And will he finally work with Congress to repeal Obamacare and start over, adopting instead reforms that will make healthcare more personal, portable, and affordable?
The President will likely respond to this, ignoring the "like your Dr." and "keep your doctor" aspects. He will claim that Obamacare will be good for the American public and that we've just not had enough time to see its advantages.
Sen. Cruz, posing these questions to the President is an effort to work with him. Congress has had five years to work with Pres. Obama with no significant success. The reasons are that Pres. Obama has a complete Marxist philosophy, while Congress has only a partial Marxist philosophy. The sooner Congress recognizes that it is impossible to work with this President, and that every effort should be made to impeach him and remove him from office, the better.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Wealth Redistribution by Socialism
Walter Williams is a black national columnist. He is also a Professor of Economics at George Mason University.
I mention that he is black, because it is unusual for a black person to deviate so strongly from the Democratic Party line and the present choreography of the Obama Administration. Black people tend to congregate with other blacks and particularly follow a black leader, such as Pres. Obama, without any regard to issues.
Prof. Williams issued a nationally syndicated article in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal on January 20 entitled, "Wealth Redistribution Is Poor Solution for Income Inequality".
In this article, Prof. Williams clearly explains that income results from having made a contribution. A contribution is something which has improved the lifestyle of an individual or group of individuals. He uses the example of a person mowing a lawn for $50, which is the value of the contribution to the lawn owner. Conversely, he mentions Brin and Page, who are cofounders of Google. As is apparent, Google is believed to be instrumental in improving the lifestyle of millions of people. The resulting income for Brin and Page runs into the billions of dollars, because of the magnitude of that contribution. This is similar to the previous old capitalistic idea that one doesn't profit much from the sale of a needle and a spool of thread, but it makes a huge difference if the sales are to millions of people. Hence, the development of Woolworth.
Prof. Williams goes on to make a second analogy. In this case, Tom, Dick and Harry play poker once a week, with Tom winning 75% of the time. Close investigation shows that Tom has not been cheating, and he has been winning because he is a better poker player.
Prof. Williams says that Brin and Page should keep their billions of income and Tom should keep his poker winnings, because it is the fair thing to do. Prof. Williams goes on to say that operations of government to institute rules, which would not allow these gains, is basically unfair. He does not mention that the institution of such rules inhibit further development. If Brin and Page cannot keep their income, what incentive will future persons or partners have to make significant contributions? Similarly, why would anybody want to become a better poker player, when the opportunity for gain is eliminated? One could say that there are compensations for success, other than money. One is simply a desire to be the best by recognition. That is certainly helpful, but a physical benefits such as money, with the conveniences that it can buy is perhaps of equal or greater significance. Without opportunity for profit, would Rockefeller have developed the US railroad system, Carnegie the steel industry, or Edison the electric light bulb?
We have been in the throes of developing socialism, with the removal of profit incentive, since the time of Franklin Roosevelt. In the past few years, Pres. Obama has strongly accentuated the process. The question is where we go from here?
We have seen the results of capitalism and the results of socialism. As the US has become more socialistic, it has sunk deeper into debt, has reduced its power through financial weakness, and has achieved a reduction of respect for its government. The two available options are to continue with increased socialism or to swing back toward a more capitalistic operation. However, Newton's first law of physics says that a body in motion tends to remain in motion. It is also apparent that a program in development, such as socialism, will tend to remain in development. In other words, it will take a major effort to stop the socialistic development and swing back toward capitalism.
There are two major incentives for the continuation of socialistic development. We have an electoral system of government, which means that the people can elect its government officials. This results in a system whereby government officials attempt to satisfy the public for reelection and retention of their special benefits as government officials. The second major incentive for continuation of socialistic development is public attitude. In the US, the public perceives the opportunity for contribution which will reap the benefits of rewards through greater control and improved lifestyle. Conversely, the public also has an inborn desire to improve its lifestyle through less effort and a tendency for jealousy toward those who "have more". This leads to a public desire for a redistribution of wealth and pressure on government to achieve that result.
The simple question then is the controversy between opportunity, with personal benefits including private property, or "be at rest", with redistribution of wealth and no private property. Government officials personally have more to gain with the second alternative and will tend to promote it among the public. Will the US public be deceived by pie-in-the-sky socialistic promises? We will see.
I mention that he is black, because it is unusual for a black person to deviate so strongly from the Democratic Party line and the present choreography of the Obama Administration. Black people tend to congregate with other blacks and particularly follow a black leader, such as Pres. Obama, without any regard to issues.
Prof. Williams issued a nationally syndicated article in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal on January 20 entitled, "Wealth Redistribution Is Poor Solution for Income Inequality".
In this article, Prof. Williams clearly explains that income results from having made a contribution. A contribution is something which has improved the lifestyle of an individual or group of individuals. He uses the example of a person mowing a lawn for $50, which is the value of the contribution to the lawn owner. Conversely, he mentions Brin and Page, who are cofounders of Google. As is apparent, Google is believed to be instrumental in improving the lifestyle of millions of people. The resulting income for Brin and Page runs into the billions of dollars, because of the magnitude of that contribution. This is similar to the previous old capitalistic idea that one doesn't profit much from the sale of a needle and a spool of thread, but it makes a huge difference if the sales are to millions of people. Hence, the development of Woolworth.
Prof. Williams goes on to make a second analogy. In this case, Tom, Dick and Harry play poker once a week, with Tom winning 75% of the time. Close investigation shows that Tom has not been cheating, and he has been winning because he is a better poker player.
Prof. Williams says that Brin and Page should keep their billions of income and Tom should keep his poker winnings, because it is the fair thing to do. Prof. Williams goes on to say that operations of government to institute rules, which would not allow these gains, is basically unfair. He does not mention that the institution of such rules inhibit further development. If Brin and Page cannot keep their income, what incentive will future persons or partners have to make significant contributions? Similarly, why would anybody want to become a better poker player, when the opportunity for gain is eliminated? One could say that there are compensations for success, other than money. One is simply a desire to be the best by recognition. That is certainly helpful, but a physical benefits such as money, with the conveniences that it can buy is perhaps of equal or greater significance. Without opportunity for profit, would Rockefeller have developed the US railroad system, Carnegie the steel industry, or Edison the electric light bulb?
We have been in the throes of developing socialism, with the removal of profit incentive, since the time of Franklin Roosevelt. In the past few years, Pres. Obama has strongly accentuated the process. The question is where we go from here?
We have seen the results of capitalism and the results of socialism. As the US has become more socialistic, it has sunk deeper into debt, has reduced its power through financial weakness, and has achieved a reduction of respect for its government. The two available options are to continue with increased socialism or to swing back toward a more capitalistic operation. However, Newton's first law of physics says that a body in motion tends to remain in motion. It is also apparent that a program in development, such as socialism, will tend to remain in development. In other words, it will take a major effort to stop the socialistic development and swing back toward capitalism.
There are two major incentives for the continuation of socialistic development. We have an electoral system of government, which means that the people can elect its government officials. This results in a system whereby government officials attempt to satisfy the public for reelection and retention of their special benefits as government officials. The second major incentive for continuation of socialistic development is public attitude. In the US, the public perceives the opportunity for contribution which will reap the benefits of rewards through greater control and improved lifestyle. Conversely, the public also has an inborn desire to improve its lifestyle through less effort and a tendency for jealousy toward those who "have more". This leads to a public desire for a redistribution of wealth and pressure on government to achieve that result.
The simple question then is the controversy between opportunity, with personal benefits including private property, or "be at rest", with redistribution of wealth and no private property. Government officials personally have more to gain with the second alternative and will tend to promote it among the public. Will the US public be deceived by pie-in-the-sky socialistic promises? We will see.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Changing Our Government
In 1776, we made a major change in our government from a despotic King to a more representative form known as a Republic. This was not a bloodless revolution. Many colonists died as the King's army attempted to put down the rebellion. However, the colonists were ultimately successfu and the new Republic was born.
In the subsequent 238 years, continuous modifications were made, particularly in the federal government. This has led to to a strong deviation from the original Republic.
Five years ago, the developed system of semi-socialization elected President Obama on the platform of "hope and change". The hope was presumably something better for all people, and the change would presumably be for the good. It was also clear from Pres. Obama's previous record that he would be promoting major changes toward socialization. The people knew that and decided it would be good.
It has now been five years since Pres. Obama has been in office, and he has instituted major changes in government. His latest lament is that he feels he has been unable to accomplish all that he has desired. Simultaneously, the general public sees a significant negative aspect of accomplishment for its way of life, and the confidence toward "hope and change" has been severely diminished.
However Pres. Obama has three more years to serve as President and can continue to make significant changes toward socialization in our federal government. He has had strong support from Democrats in the House and Senate, but there is indication that such support may be diminishing.
We have an election coming up this year, with an opportunity to at least halt further development of socialization. While the Republicans are not blameless in our slow decline, they still remain our best hope for a stoppage of socialization, and a regain of hope for all citizens through their own enterprise, as opposed to depending upon government.
With a hoped-for change in the composition of the Senate and a retention of Republican majority in the House, there is only a theoretical potential to slow Pres. Obama's socialistic changes through presidential edict. Impeachment of Pres. Obama has also been discussed, but that is likely "pie-in-the-sky", even with strong Republican support in both the House and Senate. President Obama has done nothing which could be construed as criminal.
An alternative for a bloodless change in our federal government has been proposed by Dr. Bob May, who is a candidate opposing Rep. Neugebauer as the House Representative for the 19th District of Texas. He suggests an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as allowed by Article V of the Constitution.
I personally like the U.S. Constitution as it is and believe that most of our problems are caused by deviations from its principles through the past 238 years. My desire is how best to return to government operations which more closely adhere to U.S. Constitution principles.
If Dr. May or others have specific suggestions of how amending the Constitution would be progress in that direction, I would much appreciate hearing from them. Meanwhile, it looks like we will be continuously stuck with Pres. Obama for the next three years, including the continuing damage to our country, which he and his administration will impart.
In the subsequent 238 years, continuous modifications were made, particularly in the federal government. This has led to to a strong deviation from the original Republic.
Five years ago, the developed system of semi-socialization elected President Obama on the platform of "hope and change". The hope was presumably something better for all people, and the change would presumably be for the good. It was also clear from Pres. Obama's previous record that he would be promoting major changes toward socialization. The people knew that and decided it would be good.
It has now been five years since Pres. Obama has been in office, and he has instituted major changes in government. His latest lament is that he feels he has been unable to accomplish all that he has desired. Simultaneously, the general public sees a significant negative aspect of accomplishment for its way of life, and the confidence toward "hope and change" has been severely diminished.
However Pres. Obama has three more years to serve as President and can continue to make significant changes toward socialization in our federal government. He has had strong support from Democrats in the House and Senate, but there is indication that such support may be diminishing.
We have an election coming up this year, with an opportunity to at least halt further development of socialization. While the Republicans are not blameless in our slow decline, they still remain our best hope for a stoppage of socialization, and a regain of hope for all citizens through their own enterprise, as opposed to depending upon government.
With a hoped-for change in the composition of the Senate and a retention of Republican majority in the House, there is only a theoretical potential to slow Pres. Obama's socialistic changes through presidential edict. Impeachment of Pres. Obama has also been discussed, but that is likely "pie-in-the-sky", even with strong Republican support in both the House and Senate. President Obama has done nothing which could be construed as criminal.
An alternative for a bloodless change in our federal government has been proposed by Dr. Bob May, who is a candidate opposing Rep. Neugebauer as the House Representative for the 19th District of Texas. He suggests an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as allowed by Article V of the Constitution.
I personally like the U.S. Constitution as it is and believe that most of our problems are caused by deviations from its principles through the past 238 years. My desire is how best to return to government operations which more closely adhere to U.S. Constitution principles.
If Dr. May or others have specific suggestions of how amending the Constitution would be progress in that direction, I would much appreciate hearing from them. Meanwhile, it looks like we will be continuously stuck with Pres. Obama for the next three years, including the continuing damage to our country, which he and his administration will impart.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Unavailability of Congressional Representatives
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
I periodically want to send to a Chairman of a House Committee or Senate Committee a suggestion or comment relative to his/her committee.
I have easily found on the Internet, for both the House and Senate, their various committees and chairmen thereof.
In the case of a Senate Committee Chairman I can also easily find his/her email address and proceed with my message.
However, in the case of a House Committee Chairman, the email address is only usable by the local constituents, who have elected him/her. It seems that House Committee Chairmen do not wish to hear from US citizens outside their local territories. This gives the impression that House Committee Chairmen have no responsibility to all US citizens in their federal capacity. It seems that they are only interested in satisfying local voters for their reelection to office.
It is my impression that all Representatives (Congressman) work for me, even though I have not had a direct part in their election. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If you tend to agree with my understanding of the federal government's responsibility to all citizens, I would appreciate your making every effort to change the email system for House Representatives, so that they are contactable by all US citizens, not just people from their district.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
I periodically want to send to a Chairman of a House Committee or Senate Committee a suggestion or comment relative to his/her committee.
I have easily found on the Internet, for both the House and Senate, their various committees and chairmen thereof.
In the case of a Senate Committee Chairman I can also easily find his/her email address and proceed with my message.
However, in the case of a House Committee Chairman, the email address is only usable by the local constituents, who have elected him/her. It seems that House Committee Chairmen do not wish to hear from US citizens outside their local territories. This gives the impression that House Committee Chairmen have no responsibility to all US citizens in their federal capacity. It seems that they are only interested in satisfying local voters for their reelection to office.
It is my impression that all Representatives (Congressman) work for me, even though I have not had a direct part in their election. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If you tend to agree with my understanding of the federal government's responsibility to all citizens, I would appreciate your making every effort to change the email system for House Representatives, so that they are contactable by all US citizens, not just people from their district.
Friday, January 17, 2014
US Dominance in the Far East?
Open Email to:
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
The Washington Times has the following headline: "Ominous warning: Admiral concedes U.S. losing dominance to China". The article goes on to say that Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III said this week that U.S. dominance has weakened in the shadow of a more aggressive China. He said that. "Our historic dominance that most of us in this room have enjoyed is diminishing, no question”.
Let's look at the word "dominance". It means to hold a position of superior power over another individual or group. That power realistically means, "You do as I say or there will be consequences". Notice that this is also the definition of a bully. Adm. Locklear did not say we are losing "respect". He said we are losing "dominance", with the power to order other countries what they must do.
The advantages to a dominant person or group is to reap some sort of benefit. For example, the traditional bully walks away with the victim's lunch money. There is also the aspect of a dominant person or group using the guise of "protection", which is a traditional Mafia technique. It says that "if you pay me, I will see that no harm comes to you". The implication is also that "if you do not pay me, I will personally arranged to have my friends inflict damage on you".
Then, the question is whether we want to have dominance in the Far East? Why should we be telling Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, et al. what they must do? We have nothing to gain, other than a feeling of power. Conversely, they have something to gain in being victims; essentially military protection, trade benefits, and a few other things. In effect, it is a distorted operation of the "bully principle", wherein the bully only has expense, while the victims have all the gains.
If you want to look at it from a fairness point of view, why should a foreign and remote entity have control over another group, which can adequately take care of itself. The dominance aspect is only another ramification of British imperialism, which the world decided some years ago was inappropriate and basically led to the dissolution of the British Empire. On the same basis, the United States must give up its dominance in the Far East.
This is not to say that we should not be cooperative with the previous "victims", but we must give up our position to protect them and give them special trade rights, which work to our disadvantage. We can't afford otherwise. If we do this, we reduce our foreign expenses by requiring the "victims" to pay their own way and at least make a minor dent in our unbalanced federal budget.
China may be seeking to obtain dominance in its region and subsequently extract the benefits of the traditional bully, but there is no reason to believe that the other Far East countries must be willing to submit. They each and collectively have the possibility of military action against a developing Chinese bully, without US help. The US has standing armies in Japan, as a remnant of the Second World War, and in Korea, as a remnant of the Korean War. Those military people should been removed long ago. Their presence to deter the rise of a new militant Japan or a stronger North Korea has long been obsolete. Removal now is somewhat more conjectural, since it may give the Chinese a further incentive to develop dominance and extract the usual bully benefits. The solution probably is to leave US military personnel there for the time being, but to slowly pass military responsibility to the host countries, which would allow continuing US withdrawal.
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
The Washington Times has the following headline: "Ominous warning: Admiral concedes U.S. losing dominance to China". The article goes on to say that Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III said this week that U.S. dominance has weakened in the shadow of a more aggressive China. He said that. "Our historic dominance that most of us in this room have enjoyed is diminishing, no question”.
Let's look at the word "dominance". It means to hold a position of superior power over another individual or group. That power realistically means, "You do as I say or there will be consequences". Notice that this is also the definition of a bully. Adm. Locklear did not say we are losing "respect". He said we are losing "dominance", with the power to order other countries what they must do.
The advantages to a dominant person or group is to reap some sort of benefit. For example, the traditional bully walks away with the victim's lunch money. There is also the aspect of a dominant person or group using the guise of "protection", which is a traditional Mafia technique. It says that "if you pay me, I will see that no harm comes to you". The implication is also that "if you do not pay me, I will personally arranged to have my friends inflict damage on you".
Then, the question is whether we want to have dominance in the Far East? Why should we be telling Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, et al. what they must do? We have nothing to gain, other than a feeling of power. Conversely, they have something to gain in being victims; essentially military protection, trade benefits, and a few other things. In effect, it is a distorted operation of the "bully principle", wherein the bully only has expense, while the victims have all the gains.
If you want to look at it from a fairness point of view, why should a foreign and remote entity have control over another group, which can adequately take care of itself. The dominance aspect is only another ramification of British imperialism, which the world decided some years ago was inappropriate and basically led to the dissolution of the British Empire. On the same basis, the United States must give up its dominance in the Far East.
This is not to say that we should not be cooperative with the previous "victims", but we must give up our position to protect them and give them special trade rights, which work to our disadvantage. We can't afford otherwise. If we do this, we reduce our foreign expenses by requiring the "victims" to pay their own way and at least make a minor dent in our unbalanced federal budget.
China may be seeking to obtain dominance in its region and subsequently extract the benefits of the traditional bully, but there is no reason to believe that the other Far East countries must be willing to submit. They each and collectively have the possibility of military action against a developing Chinese bully, without US help. The US has standing armies in Japan, as a remnant of the Second World War, and in Korea, as a remnant of the Korean War. Those military people should been removed long ago. Their presence to deter the rise of a new militant Japan or a stronger North Korea has long been obsolete. Removal now is somewhat more conjectural, since it may give the Chinese a further incentive to develop dominance and extract the usual bully benefits. The solution probably is to leave US military personnel there for the time being, but to slowly pass military responsibility to the host countries, which would allow continuing US withdrawal.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
No US Future in Iraq
Open Email to:
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
According to the Washington Times, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Saleh Mutlaq accused Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of fomenting sectarian violence to limit the voices of Sunnis in upcoming elections, and he criticized the Obama administration for failing to do more for a country “destroyed” by the United States. He went on to say that without more deeply engaged guidance and pressure from Washington Iraq is at risk for an all-out sectarian meltdown and civil war.
The Deputy Prime Minister is correct in saying that Iraq had been destroyed by the US. Saddam Hussein had Iraq under full control. It is true that he obtained that control by killing probably a few million of what he considered his adversaries. However under his control of Iraq, the Middle East was relatively stabilized. Somehow, George Bush got the impression that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction", declared war on Iraq, and invaded the country to eliminate the supposed mass destruction weapons. None were found. It was a big mistake. We took Saddam Hussein out of power and reduced Iraq to shambles at a cost of $800 billion and the deaths of 4500 US soldiers.
The Deputy Prime Minister is saying that the US now has the responsibility of putting the country back together again. But, we can't do that. It is impossible. We "broke" the country as an egg, and we can't put it back together. We meddled in the first place in an area we should not have, and continued meddling will do nothing to alleviate any pain that Iraqi citizens may have, and it would only cost us more money and perhaps more US deaths. The Iraqi citizens had pain under Saddam Hussein, as many of their relatives and friends were killed. They learned to live with that. They can now learn to live with new pain of civil war. There is no way we can help.
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
According to the Washington Times, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Saleh Mutlaq accused Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of fomenting sectarian violence to limit the voices of Sunnis in upcoming elections, and he criticized the Obama administration for failing to do more for a country “destroyed” by the United States. He went on to say that without more deeply engaged guidance and pressure from Washington Iraq is at risk for an all-out sectarian meltdown and civil war.
The Deputy Prime Minister is correct in saying that Iraq had been destroyed by the US. Saddam Hussein had Iraq under full control. It is true that he obtained that control by killing probably a few million of what he considered his adversaries. However under his control of Iraq, the Middle East was relatively stabilized. Somehow, George Bush got the impression that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction", declared war on Iraq, and invaded the country to eliminate the supposed mass destruction weapons. None were found. It was a big mistake. We took Saddam Hussein out of power and reduced Iraq to shambles at a cost of $800 billion and the deaths of 4500 US soldiers.
The Deputy Prime Minister is saying that the US now has the responsibility of putting the country back together again. But, we can't do that. It is impossible. We "broke" the country as an egg, and we can't put it back together. We meddled in the first place in an area we should not have, and continued meddling will do nothing to alleviate any pain that Iraqi citizens may have, and it would only cost us more money and perhaps more US deaths. The Iraqi citizens had pain under Saddam Hussein, as many of their relatives and friends were killed. They learned to live with that. They can now learn to live with new pain of civil war. There is no way we can help.
We Have a Bloated Federal Government
The New York Times recently published an article entitled, "Bloated Government? Federal Employment at 47-Year Low".
I will not dispute the numbers, but I will say that in spite of the numbers, we do have a bloated federal government.
I say this based on the observation that we have never had in our national history, a time where citizens have been more restricted on their personal rights. For example, the government has deprived me from buying incandescent light bulbs. It is also forcing me to buy healthcare, which I don't want or need.
These restrictions obviously come from a bloated government. If the numbers show a reduced number of federal employees, it only means that they have become much more efficient in their capacity to enforce private restrictions and generally increase government control of the public.
The correction obviously must be in the direction of reducing the number of government employees. We cannot change their efficiency, but we can limit the number who are presently doing damage to our liberty, economy, and general lifestyle.
I will not dispute the numbers, but I will say that in spite of the numbers, we do have a bloated federal government.
I say this based on the observation that we have never had in our national history, a time where citizens have been more restricted on their personal rights. For example, the government has deprived me from buying incandescent light bulbs. It is also forcing me to buy healthcare, which I don't want or need.
These restrictions obviously come from a bloated government. If the numbers show a reduced number of federal employees, it only means that they have become much more efficient in their capacity to enforce private restrictions and generally increase government control of the public.
The correction obviously must be in the direction of reducing the number of government employees. We cannot change their efficiency, but we can limit the number who are presently doing damage to our liberty, economy, and general lifestyle.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
National Security Agency's Operations
Open Email to:
Sen. Tom Carper, Chairman of Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
Dear Sen. Carper,
Thank you for replying to my email concerning overreach of the National Security Agency. I usually don't receive a response when I write to federal government officials, and I much appreciate your reply. Whenever I do receive replies from others, they are usually form letters concerning a sbject on which I had not previously communicated. Your response was right on target and formulated such that if it was a form letter, it was not obvious.
You said that you believe the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the PATRIOT Act are needed to prevent terrorist attacks and are kept in check by rigorous judicial and Congressional oversight, all within the bounds of the law. On that basis you have voted repeatedly to give President Obama the tools to conduct effective intelligence gathering while also supporting critical protections for our citizen's privacy.
You have my agreement that we certainly need a system for prevention of terrorist attacks, but whether we need the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Patriot Act in their present forms is conjectural.
My primary concern is that with any law passed by Congress and given to the Administration as an agency for operation has been traditionally fraught with difficulty. The basic problem is that the administration routinely extends the operation of the agency into areas which were not originally intended by the Congressional law. You say that like Pres. Obama you believe that Congress should review the NSA's practices and determine what policy changes should be made toward moving toward better safeguard for citizens privacy. That is a wonderful motherhood statement but full of naivety. If we had an ideal federal government wherein the Congress and the Administration were on the same wavelength of ideology that would be true. But, in the present real world of Pres. Obama operating under Marxist principles, it would be additionally naïve to believe that he would actually intend to move toward better safeguard for citizens privacy.
You also say the President is committed to working with Congress to revise Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which gives the government authority to collect phone records of citizens if there exists a connection to an ongoing terrorism investigation. That is a laugh. I am sure that you have not been blinded and unable to see that Pres. Obama routinely ignores previous agreements. He is an autocratic president and prefers to operate by administrative edict rather than work with Congress at any time. He will NOT continue to use these intelligence gathering tools of the NSA to target only those suspected of serious terrorist offenses.
In 1938, the Reichstag rubberstamped Hitler's edicts, and we had a Second World War which killed a tremendous number of Americans. Without close supervision of what Pres. Obama and the NSA are really doing, we will be heading in the same direction. You have an opportunity to stop that, but it will take a little work. Are you more interested in the condition and future of the country, or are you satisfied with agreeing to whatever a Marxist President says and concentrating on your next reelection?
________________________________
From: Senator Carper [mailto:Senator_Tom_Carper@carper.senate.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:39 PM
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subject: Responding to your message
<http://carper.senate.gov/IQHeaders/Carper_Header.png>
January 10, 2014
Dear Dr. Sucsy:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the National Security Administration's surveillance efforts, particularly as it pertains to the prevention of terrorist attacks. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.
Let me begin by saying that I understand the concerns raised by the prospect of invasive government surveillance programs. I believe that the United States government, from the Administration to Congress to our courts, must strike a balance between respecting our cherished civil liberties and privacy while also ensuring that our intelligence gathering agencies have the tools, information, and resources they need to do their jobs and keep Americans safe.
My understanding when I joined a broad bipartisan majority of my colleagues in voting to reauthorize both the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the PATRIOT Act, and my understanding today, is that these authorities are needed to prevent terrorist attacks but are kept in check by rigorous judicial and Congressional oversight, all within the bounds of the law. That's why I have voted repeatedly to give the administrations of both the President George W. Bush Administration and President Barack Obama the tools to conduct effective intelligence gathering while also supporting critical protections for our citizen's privacy.
Unfortunately we know all too well that there are still those around the world who would do us harm, and I think one reason why we've only had one major successful terror attack in the United States since 9/11 is because our intelligence community has remained eternally vigilant and has acted on the intelligence they gathered through many of these programs. I believe that it is imperative that, while working to secure our homeland, we also take steps to protect the civil liberties of all Americans to the best of our ability. We must continue to work on this all the time; in fact, I believe we can use these recent media reports as a learning opportunity in our efforts to perfect that balance.
With that being said, it is troubling to hear of more recent news stories suggesting that according to an internal review conducted by the NSA, many of the safeguards to protect citizens' privacy my colleagues and I insisted on when supporting this intelligence gathering authority may not always have been followed consistently. Like President Obama, I believe that Congress should review the NSA's practices and determine what policy changes should be made moving forward to better safeguard our citizens' privacy while still ensuring that our law enforcement and intelligence communities have the tools and resources they need to do their jobs and keep us safe.
To that end, the President announced his intentions earlier this month to make reforms to the PATRIOT Act and to the FISA law in order to increase transparency and to ensure that the laws comply with Americans' rights. Such measures include establishing an in-house Civil Liberties compliance officer at the NSA to better ensure compliance by analysts to safeguards designed to protect American citizens, as well as convening an industry panel of experts to review and issue recommendations about how technology has impacted current surveillance laws. The President also committed to working with Congress to revise Section of 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which gives the government authority to collect phone records of citizens if there exists a connection to an ongoing terrorism investigation.
My colleagues and I worked to make sure that the authorities granted in the reauthorization of FISA and the PATRIOT Act are not permanent so that we can continue to exercise strong oversight and determine whether further modifications to these laws are necessary in the future. My expectation is that President Obama and his administration will continue to use these intelligence gathering tools to target only those suspected of serious terrorist offenses, thereby striking a responsible balance between preserving civil liberties and protecting our citizens from those who wish to do us harm. Rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind should any legislation pertaining to this matter comes before the full Senate for consideration.
Thank you once again for contacting my office. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or other issues of importance to you.
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Tom Carper
United States Senator
Sen. Tom Carper, Chairman of Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
Dear Sen. Carper,
Thank you for replying to my email concerning overreach of the National Security Agency. I usually don't receive a response when I write to federal government officials, and I much appreciate your reply. Whenever I do receive replies from others, they are usually form letters concerning a sbject on which I had not previously communicated. Your response was right on target and formulated such that if it was a form letter, it was not obvious.
You said that you believe the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the PATRIOT Act are needed to prevent terrorist attacks and are kept in check by rigorous judicial and Congressional oversight, all within the bounds of the law. On that basis you have voted repeatedly to give President Obama the tools to conduct effective intelligence gathering while also supporting critical protections for our citizen's privacy.
You have my agreement that we certainly need a system for prevention of terrorist attacks, but whether we need the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Patriot Act in their present forms is conjectural.
My primary concern is that with any law passed by Congress and given to the Administration as an agency for operation has been traditionally fraught with difficulty. The basic problem is that the administration routinely extends the operation of the agency into areas which were not originally intended by the Congressional law. You say that like Pres. Obama you believe that Congress should review the NSA's practices and determine what policy changes should be made toward moving toward better safeguard for citizens privacy. That is a wonderful motherhood statement but full of naivety. If we had an ideal federal government wherein the Congress and the Administration were on the same wavelength of ideology that would be true. But, in the present real world of Pres. Obama operating under Marxist principles, it would be additionally naïve to believe that he would actually intend to move toward better safeguard for citizens privacy.
You also say the President is committed to working with Congress to revise Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which gives the government authority to collect phone records of citizens if there exists a connection to an ongoing terrorism investigation. That is a laugh. I am sure that you have not been blinded and unable to see that Pres. Obama routinely ignores previous agreements. He is an autocratic president and prefers to operate by administrative edict rather than work with Congress at any time. He will NOT continue to use these intelligence gathering tools of the NSA to target only those suspected of serious terrorist offenses.
In 1938, the Reichstag rubberstamped Hitler's edicts, and we had a Second World War which killed a tremendous number of Americans. Without close supervision of what Pres. Obama and the NSA are really doing, we will be heading in the same direction. You have an opportunity to stop that, but it will take a little work. Are you more interested in the condition and future of the country, or are you satisfied with agreeing to whatever a Marxist President says and concentrating on your next reelection?
________________________________
From: Senator Carper [mailto:Senator_Tom_Carper@carper.senate.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:39 PM
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subject: Responding to your message
<http://carper.senate.gov/IQHeaders/Carper_Header.png>
January 10, 2014
Dear Dr. Sucsy:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the National Security Administration's surveillance efforts, particularly as it pertains to the prevention of terrorist attacks. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.
Let me begin by saying that I understand the concerns raised by the prospect of invasive government surveillance programs. I believe that the United States government, from the Administration to Congress to our courts, must strike a balance between respecting our cherished civil liberties and privacy while also ensuring that our intelligence gathering agencies have the tools, information, and resources they need to do their jobs and keep Americans safe.
My understanding when I joined a broad bipartisan majority of my colleagues in voting to reauthorize both the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the PATRIOT Act, and my understanding today, is that these authorities are needed to prevent terrorist attacks but are kept in check by rigorous judicial and Congressional oversight, all within the bounds of the law. That's why I have voted repeatedly to give the administrations of both the President George W. Bush Administration and President Barack Obama the tools to conduct effective intelligence gathering while also supporting critical protections for our citizen's privacy.
Unfortunately we know all too well that there are still those around the world who would do us harm, and I think one reason why we've only had one major successful terror attack in the United States since 9/11 is because our intelligence community has remained eternally vigilant and has acted on the intelligence they gathered through many of these programs. I believe that it is imperative that, while working to secure our homeland, we also take steps to protect the civil liberties of all Americans to the best of our ability. We must continue to work on this all the time; in fact, I believe we can use these recent media reports as a learning opportunity in our efforts to perfect that balance.
With that being said, it is troubling to hear of more recent news stories suggesting that according to an internal review conducted by the NSA, many of the safeguards to protect citizens' privacy my colleagues and I insisted on when supporting this intelligence gathering authority may not always have been followed consistently. Like President Obama, I believe that Congress should review the NSA's practices and determine what policy changes should be made moving forward to better safeguard our citizens' privacy while still ensuring that our law enforcement and intelligence communities have the tools and resources they need to do their jobs and keep us safe.
To that end, the President announced his intentions earlier this month to make reforms to the PATRIOT Act and to the FISA law in order to increase transparency and to ensure that the laws comply with Americans' rights. Such measures include establishing an in-house Civil Liberties compliance officer at the NSA to better ensure compliance by analysts to safeguards designed to protect American citizens, as well as convening an industry panel of experts to review and issue recommendations about how technology has impacted current surveillance laws. The President also committed to working with Congress to revise Section of 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which gives the government authority to collect phone records of citizens if there exists a connection to an ongoing terrorism investigation.
My colleagues and I worked to make sure that the authorities granted in the reauthorization of FISA and the PATRIOT Act are not permanent so that we can continue to exercise strong oversight and determine whether further modifications to these laws are necessary in the future. My expectation is that President Obama and his administration will continue to use these intelligence gathering tools to target only those suspected of serious terrorist offenses, thereby striking a responsible balance between preserving civil liberties and protecting our citizens from those who wish to do us harm. Rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind should any legislation pertaining to this matter comes before the full Senate for consideration.
Thank you once again for contacting my office. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or other issues of importance to you.
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Tom Carper
United States Senator
Monday, January 13, 2014
Limit Bill Size
Open Email to
House Speaker Boehner:
Senate Majority Leader Reid:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid,
A Political Associate has what I believe they valuable suggestion; Limit the Size of Bills. Here's what he has to say:
"Most Americans are appalled by the intrusion of the Federal Government into our private and business lives. Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are only two recent examples. The fault lies principally with the Congress.
As you know, each bill that becomes law contains a set of authorities. These are used by the bureaucracies to promulgate the rules that will define the law and its enforcement. It is no secret that each bureaucracy defines these authorities broadly to increase their power. Therein lies the rub. The problem lies in the size and scope of each bill. For Obamacare, thousands of pages of rules have been published in the Federal Register and the rule making continues with no end in sight. The same holds true for Dodd-Frank.
My serious recommendation is that Congress change its rules to limit the size of each bill to about two hundred pages including amendments. Then the set of authorities would be limited to the specific intent of the bill. Perhaps even more important, it would raise the probability that members of Congress might actually read and understand the legislation they are voting on.
Secondly, over our history, our federal laws have become encrusted with laws that have no continuing purpose or have been interpreted by the bureaucracies far beyond their original intent. I would be happy to cite numerous examples. Therefore, my second recommendation is that the Congress vote to repeal all laws over fifty years old. Obviously, the Congress would act to exempt specifically those laws that still had meaning and purpose. This would mean that the Congress would spend a significant portion of their time in session revising and reconstructing the foundation of our federal legal system. It is very badly needed".
House Speaker Boehner:
Senate Majority Leader Reid:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid,
A Political Associate has what I believe they valuable suggestion; Limit the Size of Bills. Here's what he has to say:
"Most Americans are appalled by the intrusion of the Federal Government into our private and business lives. Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are only two recent examples. The fault lies principally with the Congress.
As you know, each bill that becomes law contains a set of authorities. These are used by the bureaucracies to promulgate the rules that will define the law and its enforcement. It is no secret that each bureaucracy defines these authorities broadly to increase their power. Therein lies the rub. The problem lies in the size and scope of each bill. For Obamacare, thousands of pages of rules have been published in the Federal Register and the rule making continues with no end in sight. The same holds true for Dodd-Frank.
My serious recommendation is that Congress change its rules to limit the size of each bill to about two hundred pages including amendments. Then the set of authorities would be limited to the specific intent of the bill. Perhaps even more important, it would raise the probability that members of Congress might actually read and understand the legislation they are voting on.
Secondly, over our history, our federal laws have become encrusted with laws that have no continuing purpose or have been interpreted by the bureaucracies far beyond their original intent. I would be happy to cite numerous examples. Therefore, my second recommendation is that the Congress vote to repeal all laws over fifty years old. Obviously, the Congress would act to exempt specifically those laws that still had meaning and purpose. This would mean that the Congress would spend a significant portion of their time in session revising and reconstructing the foundation of our federal legal system. It is very badly needed".
Inept Politicians
Virginia Gov. McAuliffe emphasized progress over ideology’ in his inauguration speech on Saturday.
THAT IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
Progress is by definition a matter of follow-up or operation toward a goal. Progress toward no goal is no progress.
Progress is always subservient to ideology. For example, the ideology of the present Obama Administration is basically Marxist. In that respect, there has been great progress. There is now more redistribution of wealth, reduced personal liberties, increased size of government with more citizens on the government payroll, etc.
Conversely, there has been no progress toward an ideology of free enterprise and liberty.
THAT IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
Progress is by definition a matter of follow-up or operation toward a goal. Progress toward no goal is no progress.
Progress is always subservient to ideology. For example, the ideology of the present Obama Administration is basically Marxist. In that respect, there has been great progress. There is now more redistribution of wealth, reduced personal liberties, increased size of government with more citizens on the government payroll, etc.
Conversely, there has been no progress toward an ideology of free enterprise and liberty.
Obama's Nuclear Deal with Iran
Open email to:
Rep. Michael McCall, Chairman House Committee on Homeland Security Sen. Tom Carper, Chairman Senate Committee on Homeland Security
Dear Rep. McCall and Sen. Carper,
Let's start with certainties on the Iranian situation.
1. Iran is incapable of arriving at an agreement which they will hold to.
2. It will be impossible to stop Iran from developing an atomic weapon in the long run. We can only hope to slow them down in their efforts. Similarly, any country with sufficient resolve and assets can develop an atomic weapon. The technology is known and is not terribly complicated.
3. The slowing process for atomic weapon development in Iran is based upon sanctions. The greater the sanctions, the less Iranian public support the Iranian government will have. Oil income for atomic weapon development is their greatest asset.
Now, for the best course of action.
1. Sanctions. The US has increased oil supply and has little need for Iranian oil. Not so true with respect to some other industrial countries not endowed with such good local resource. In view of that, it is difficult to obtain international cooperation on sanctions, but the question to other countries is whether they are now willing to face a little discomfort on less or higher-priced oil to gain a decrease in an Iranian atomic threat.
2. Revert to the Mutually Assured Destruction policy (MAD), which was used so successfully against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In effect that policy was that if you send an atomic weapon our way, we will retaliate. The increase retaliation on both sides, with unlimited atomic weapons, would lead to both countries and perhaps the world being destroyed.
Fortunately there is a brighter side to this. That is, the US has superior and unlimited atomic capability. Countries other than Russia or China have limited capability. For example, even with a developed atomic weapon and a mode of delivery, Iran could likely deliver only one or two atomic weapons at a time against the US. Retaliation by the US would completely obliterate Iran. It would no longer exist. While damage to the US would be extensive, it would be reversible. It is likely that this knowledge by the North Koreans, presently holds them in abeyance for use of their atomic weapons.
Rep. Michael McCall, Chairman House Committee on Homeland Security Sen. Tom Carper, Chairman Senate Committee on Homeland Security
Dear Rep. McCall and Sen. Carper,
Let's start with certainties on the Iranian situation.
1. Iran is incapable of arriving at an agreement which they will hold to.
2. It will be impossible to stop Iran from developing an atomic weapon in the long run. We can only hope to slow them down in their efforts. Similarly, any country with sufficient resolve and assets can develop an atomic weapon. The technology is known and is not terribly complicated.
3. The slowing process for atomic weapon development in Iran is based upon sanctions. The greater the sanctions, the less Iranian public support the Iranian government will have. Oil income for atomic weapon development is their greatest asset.
Now, for the best course of action.
1. Sanctions. The US has increased oil supply and has little need for Iranian oil. Not so true with respect to some other industrial countries not endowed with such good local resource. In view of that, it is difficult to obtain international cooperation on sanctions, but the question to other countries is whether they are now willing to face a little discomfort on less or higher-priced oil to gain a decrease in an Iranian atomic threat.
2. Revert to the Mutually Assured Destruction policy (MAD), which was used so successfully against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In effect that policy was that if you send an atomic weapon our way, we will retaliate. The increase retaliation on both sides, with unlimited atomic weapons, would lead to both countries and perhaps the world being destroyed.
Fortunately there is a brighter side to this. That is, the US has superior and unlimited atomic capability. Countries other than Russia or China have limited capability. For example, even with a developed atomic weapon and a mode of delivery, Iran could likely deliver only one or two atomic weapons at a time against the US. Retaliation by the US would completely obliterate Iran. It would no longer exist. While damage to the US would be extensive, it would be reversible. It is likely that this knowledge by the North Koreans, presently holds them in abeyance for use of their atomic weapons.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Al Qaeda in Fallujah
Open Email to Megyn Kelly of Fox News:
Dear Ms. Kelly,
I heard you fanning war flames this evening on Fox news, because Al Qaeda is in Fallujah.
If the people of Iraq want Al Qaeda in their midst, who are we to say that they can't have them?
If we don't like Al Qaeda, feeling they are a threat to our homeland security, we can bomb them into oblivion without having a US soldier ever set foot in Iraq again.
If in the bombing there is so-called collateral damage to innocent civilians, remember that there are no innocent civilians, since they wanted Al Qaeda there or at least did nothing about keeping them out.
Dear Ms. Kelly,
I heard you fanning war flames this evening on Fox news, because Al Qaeda is in Fallujah.
If the people of Iraq want Al Qaeda in their midst, who are we to say that they can't have them?
If we don't like Al Qaeda, feeling they are a threat to our homeland security, we can bomb them into oblivion without having a US soldier ever set foot in Iraq again.
If in the bombing there is so-called collateral damage to innocent civilians, remember that there are no innocent civilians, since they wanted Al Qaeda there or at least did nothing about keeping them out.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Futility in Iraq
Open Email to:
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
In an interview with the Washington Times, Mr. Faily, Iraqi Ambassador to the US, went on a tear against the Obama administration.
He did this because he wants money. The present government of Prime Minister al-Maliki is Shiite and has been said to ignore the plight of the Sunni population. In fact, Iraq is in danger of falling into a full-fledged civil war between its Shiite and Sunni populations. Mr. Faily wants monetary and military support from the US to maintain his present government in power.
What other Shiites and Sunnis fighting about? Primarily control of the government and all of its benefits, especially oil. Mr. Faily said the production of oil in Iraq has the potential to increase to a level in which it can really stabilize world energy; Iraq is the only country with that capability or potential. He seems to ignore the fact that with significantly increased US production of oil, OPEC is already an Iraqi situation.
With those benefits at risk, Mr. Faily is attempting to bludgeon the Obama Administration into giving him monetary and military support.
He is using the competitive approach by claiming that the Obama administration has been notably less willing to “buy in” to a strategy of providing deep support to Baghdad than the Bush administration was. He is also waving the threat of Al Qaeda at us by claiming that Iraq could become a safe haven, which would be against the U.S. strategic interest and national security.
Unfortunately his rhetoric seems to be at least partially successful, since the Obama Administration announced this week that it would increase and accelerate delivery to the Iraqi military of surveillance drones, as well as air-to-surface Hellfire missiles. Who pays? The American taxpayer or more likely future generations of your grandchildren.
We've been involved with Iraq for almost 10 years at tremendous cost. What have been the results? Basically none. We have no benefit from their oil. We have been unable to democratize the country, although that was a ridiculous proposal in the first place.
Referring to Mr. Faily's US strategic interest in national security, what are they? Why would we need a presence in the Middle East? We can easily control any potential threat to the US homeland through satellite surveillance, the use of long-range rockets, and drones.
Pres. Obama may be a sucker for Mr. Faily's rhetoric. Let's hope that the Congress is not so naïve.
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
In an interview with the Washington Times, Mr. Faily, Iraqi Ambassador to the US, went on a tear against the Obama administration.
He did this because he wants money. The present government of Prime Minister al-Maliki is Shiite and has been said to ignore the plight of the Sunni population. In fact, Iraq is in danger of falling into a full-fledged civil war between its Shiite and Sunni populations. Mr. Faily wants monetary and military support from the US to maintain his present government in power.
What other Shiites and Sunnis fighting about? Primarily control of the government and all of its benefits, especially oil. Mr. Faily said the production of oil in Iraq has the potential to increase to a level in which it can really stabilize world energy; Iraq is the only country with that capability or potential. He seems to ignore the fact that with significantly increased US production of oil, OPEC is already an Iraqi situation.
With those benefits at risk, Mr. Faily is attempting to bludgeon the Obama Administration into giving him monetary and military support.
He is using the competitive approach by claiming that the Obama administration has been notably less willing to “buy in” to a strategy of providing deep support to Baghdad than the Bush administration was. He is also waving the threat of Al Qaeda at us by claiming that Iraq could become a safe haven, which would be against the U.S. strategic interest and national security.
Unfortunately his rhetoric seems to be at least partially successful, since the Obama Administration announced this week that it would increase and accelerate delivery to the Iraqi military of surveillance drones, as well as air-to-surface Hellfire missiles. Who pays? The American taxpayer or more likely future generations of your grandchildren.
We've been involved with Iraq for almost 10 years at tremendous cost. What have been the results? Basically none. We have no benefit from their oil. We have been unable to democratize the country, although that was a ridiculous proposal in the first place.
Referring to Mr. Faily's US strategic interest in national security, what are they? Why would we need a presence in the Middle East? We can easily control any potential threat to the US homeland through satellite surveillance, the use of long-range rockets, and drones.
Pres. Obama may be a sucker for Mr. Faily's rhetoric. Let's hope that the Congress is not so naïve.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Farm Bill, Government Funding & Obamacare
Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your latest newsletter and comment as follows:
Farm Bill
You said, "The next Farm Bill will move away from direct payments, which are sent out regardless of how much farmers are producing. Instead, this bill will be much more tuned to the free market by strengthening crop insurance which lets farmers pay premiums for coverage which only pays out if they suffer a loss. We’re also making progress on nutrition assistance. My goal for the final bill is to close loopholes and reduce program abuse that wastes taxpayer dollars. We want to be sure that nutrition assistance is going to families in need, and that we’re empowering them to play an active role in the workforce and their communities".
The move to the free market is a step in the right direction, but you are not clear on strengthening crop insurance. The only proper way is for each farmer to decide what crop insurance is best for him and pay the necessary premiums, without any government support. You did not mention government support, but with your general socialistic attitude, I am presuming that you want it in there.
You go on with the heart-stringing monolog on "families in need". I too have sympathy for families in need, but it should have no connection with the farm bill. Any food necessary for families in need should be considered welfare and handled as such. It has no relation to a farm bill. In fact, the least content of a farm bill and probably elimination of it entirely would be in the best interest of the country.
Funding the Government
The budget deal allowing over $1 trillion in spending for omnibus (all-inclusive) is ridiculous! It is a continuing increase in federal spending year-by-year and makes no effort to put things in the proper economic perspective. My emotional heart sinks and at the same time I am angry with the ridiculousness of the Congress in continuing to not only jeopardize but to make certain that the United States will cease to exist as the land of the free and the home of the brave. It will die because of a complete lack of economic leadership. Somehow, we can't get our government representatives to recognize that danger in spite of the fact that the destruction of the Soviet Union by overspending was a perfect and recent example.
However, I do congratulate you for strongly advocating a return to passing funding bills one by one. Considering each issue separately allows better decisions to be made about how taxpayer dollars are used.
Obamacare
You are concerned about protecting citizens' identity under Obamacare.
I believe that your concern is misguided, in that it detracts from the main issue. Obamacare is an abomination of socialization and is a strong step in the demolition of the United States. Every effort should be made to eliminate this misguided law and any efforts to protect, modify, or otherwise detract from the main issue of elimination does a disservice to the American people and the future of the country.
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your latest newsletter and comment as follows:
Farm Bill
You said, "The next Farm Bill will move away from direct payments, which are sent out regardless of how much farmers are producing. Instead, this bill will be much more tuned to the free market by strengthening crop insurance which lets farmers pay premiums for coverage which only pays out if they suffer a loss. We’re also making progress on nutrition assistance. My goal for the final bill is to close loopholes and reduce program abuse that wastes taxpayer dollars. We want to be sure that nutrition assistance is going to families in need, and that we’re empowering them to play an active role in the workforce and their communities".
The move to the free market is a step in the right direction, but you are not clear on strengthening crop insurance. The only proper way is for each farmer to decide what crop insurance is best for him and pay the necessary premiums, without any government support. You did not mention government support, but with your general socialistic attitude, I am presuming that you want it in there.
You go on with the heart-stringing monolog on "families in need". I too have sympathy for families in need, but it should have no connection with the farm bill. Any food necessary for families in need should be considered welfare and handled as such. It has no relation to a farm bill. In fact, the least content of a farm bill and probably elimination of it entirely would be in the best interest of the country.
Funding the Government
The budget deal allowing over $1 trillion in spending for omnibus (all-inclusive) is ridiculous! It is a continuing increase in federal spending year-by-year and makes no effort to put things in the proper economic perspective. My emotional heart sinks and at the same time I am angry with the ridiculousness of the Congress in continuing to not only jeopardize but to make certain that the United States will cease to exist as the land of the free and the home of the brave. It will die because of a complete lack of economic leadership. Somehow, we can't get our government representatives to recognize that danger in spite of the fact that the destruction of the Soviet Union by overspending was a perfect and recent example.
However, I do congratulate you for strongly advocating a return to passing funding bills one by one. Considering each issue separately allows better decisions to be made about how taxpayer dollars are used.
Obamacare
You are concerned about protecting citizens' identity under Obamacare.
I believe that your concern is misguided, in that it detracts from the main issue. Obamacare is an abomination of socialization and is a strong step in the demolition of the United States. Every effort should be made to eliminate this misguided law and any efforts to protect, modify, or otherwise detract from the main issue of elimination does a disservice to the American people and the future of the country.
Possible Armed Revolts Within States?
Strict gun control laws in Colorado forced Magpul, which makes polymer firearms accessories, to move its corporate headquarters to Texas and its manufacturing facility to Wyoming. Both had been based in Erie, Colo. Magpul had contributed more than $85 million annually to Colorado’s economy by employing 200 people and supporting another 400 supply-chain jobs.
This action by the state government forcing Magpul to pull out will be unpopular to many Colorado citizens.
I have previously written on the subject of the Second Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing citizen access to firearms so that they would have some control on a despotic federal government. On second thought, I believe this does not have to be confined only to federal considerations. It seems quite possible that if the citizenry of Colorado is unable to control its government through negotiation and legal action, an armed revolt may be a possibility.
This action by the state government forcing Magpul to pull out will be unpopular to many Colorado citizens.
I have previously written on the subject of the Second Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing citizen access to firearms so that they would have some control on a despotic federal government. On second thought, I believe this does not have to be confined only to federal considerations. It seems quite possible that if the citizenry of Colorado is unable to control its government through negotiation and legal action, an armed revolt may be a possibility.
Reasons for Gun Sales Increase
Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid,
The Washington Times says that gun sales hit a new record high in 2013 and was the 11th straight year of gun sales increase.
Apparently the public has been recognizing for some time and continues to recognize two factors.
There is increasing danger to individual personal liberties by a despotic government, and it might be necessary that sometime in the future there will be a need for an armed revolt. This is the same prediction of our forefathers, who inserted the Second Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.
The other reason is that in spite of the increasing despotism of government, government is unable to give its citizens protection against local criminal activity, such as murder, carjacking, mugging, and burglary. It is similarly inept at controlling local mass murders, such as the Sandy Hook Elementary disaster.
You can increase public confidence in government by a few simple policies as follows:
1 Stop meddling in the personal affairs of American citizens either directly or indirectly through restrictions on profit-making companies which make their jobs.
2. Start to weed out federal socialistic programs, such as Obamacare, leaving any socialization to the local citizenry 3. Stop frittering away taxpayer money on foreign wars, efforts to democratize the world, and ridiculous grants to universities for "research".
4. Eliminate or reduce any other significant expenditures which continue to lead to budget imbalance and increases in the already massive federal debt.
With respect to controlling criminality at local levels, the federal government should not be involved, either through monetary support, training, laws, or any other form of involvement. This is a matter for state and local governments and an armed responsible citizenry.
The Washington Times says that gun sales hit a new record high in 2013 and was the 11th straight year of gun sales increase.
Apparently the public has been recognizing for some time and continues to recognize two factors.
There is increasing danger to individual personal liberties by a despotic government, and it might be necessary that sometime in the future there will be a need for an armed revolt. This is the same prediction of our forefathers, who inserted the Second Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.
The other reason is that in spite of the increasing despotism of government, government is unable to give its citizens protection against local criminal activity, such as murder, carjacking, mugging, and burglary. It is similarly inept at controlling local mass murders, such as the Sandy Hook Elementary disaster.
You can increase public confidence in government by a few simple policies as follows:
1 Stop meddling in the personal affairs of American citizens either directly or indirectly through restrictions on profit-making companies which make their jobs.
2. Start to weed out federal socialistic programs, such as Obamacare, leaving any socialization to the local citizenry 3. Stop frittering away taxpayer money on foreign wars, efforts to democratize the world, and ridiculous grants to universities for "research".
4. Eliminate or reduce any other significant expenditures which continue to lead to budget imbalance and increases in the already massive federal debt.
With respect to controlling criminality at local levels, the federal government should not be involved, either through monetary support, training, laws, or any other form of involvement. This is a matter for state and local governments and an armed responsible citizenry.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Burden on Children
Open Email to Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
In your weekly newsletter you quotedRep Greg Harper, presumably with your full support, as follows: "Kids First: In Saturday’s weekly Republican address, Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) called on the U.S. Senate to pass the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, which boosts funding for research of childhood diseases and disorders".
Kids first? That's downright silly! While I certainly have compassion for the few children suffering from childhood diseases and disorders, it is essentially nothing compared to the tremendous burden you have placed upon millions of children with your ridiculous programs of continued overspending and tremendous national debt, which will affect the lives of those children.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
In your weekly newsletter you quotedRep Greg Harper, presumably with your full support, as follows: "Kids First: In Saturday’s weekly Republican address, Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) called on the U.S. Senate to pass the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, which boosts funding for research of childhood diseases and disorders".
Kids first? That's downright silly! While I certainly have compassion for the few children suffering from childhood diseases and disorders, it is essentially nothing compared to the tremendous burden you have placed upon millions of children with your ridiculous programs of continued overspending and tremendous national debt, which will affect the lives of those children.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Gun Controll
From Gordon Anderson:
"BREAKING NEWS! Gun re-registration begins in D.C., may lead to arrest and confiscation... Read the latest now on TeaParty.org"
"ACTION: Lock and load! Obama is planning to roll out a serious of Executive Orders to seize control of your guns and trample your Second Amendment rights! He is scheming right now, and we cannot underestimate him. Help us dramatically increase our firepower to stop the gun-grabbers! Blast every member of Congress with a special fax telling them, "NO GUN CONTROL! NO GUN GRABBING!".
Remember, that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to keep citizens armed, so that they would have a defense against a despotic government. Prior to the Revolutionary war, the British tried to confiscate all guns from the colonists.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Unrealistic Taxes
The Washington times says, "2014 begins with $54 billion in tax hikes".
This is somewhat of a misrepresentation, with the implication that new taxes amounting to $54 billion are being applied to the general public. In fact, the $54 billion is a calculated elimination of exemptions for special benefits previously obtained by various groups. Some of these are as follows:
1. Research tax credits.
2. Subsidies for wind turbines.
3. Tax deductions for improving building energy efficiency.
4. Tax credit for college tuition.
5. Tax deductions for state and local taxes.
6. Tax deductions for mortgage insurance.
7. Tax credits for purchasing classroom supplies.
8. Lower fares on subsidized transit systems.
9. Employment benefits from Trade Adjustment Assistance
The Congressional Research Service identified 7 tax credits for individuals that expired at the end of 2013, and another 49 aimed at businesses and investors. If one were also considering a general revision of the tax code, thousands of special tax breaks could come under scrutiny.
The key point with all of these "tax hikes" is that they all have a commonality of special exemption, which should not be part of any tax system. The only reason they are there is for political gain by Congress and others in government to buy votes to continue to hold their jobs.
I am normally an opponent to new federal taxes, because increased revenue to the federal government only increases the size and power of government, which is already excessive. However in this case, I agree with the tax hikes, because it starts to bring realism to the whole economic and tax system of government. Hopefully, the more the public recognizes tax reality, the greater will be its resistance to further taxes.
Unfortunately according to the Washington Times, Congress is likely to reinstitute many of these exemptions to individuals and special groups.
Looking at the bigger picture one can easily see that Congressional buying of votes through special exemptions is a motivating force for this inequality. The only solution is for each Representative and Senator to have a term limit for his employment by government. Only then will Representatives and Senators be able to keep their eye on the ball of what is best for the country and its citizens. I encourage all new contenders for a congressional office to indicate whether they are for or against congressional term limits, and the public should pay close attention to that reply and vote only for those who say they will vote for congressional term limits.
This is somewhat of a misrepresentation, with the implication that new taxes amounting to $54 billion are being applied to the general public. In fact, the $54 billion is a calculated elimination of exemptions for special benefits previously obtained by various groups. Some of these are as follows:
1. Research tax credits.
2. Subsidies for wind turbines.
3. Tax deductions for improving building energy efficiency.
4. Tax credit for college tuition.
5. Tax deductions for state and local taxes.
6. Tax deductions for mortgage insurance.
7. Tax credits for purchasing classroom supplies.
8. Lower fares on subsidized transit systems.
9. Employment benefits from Trade Adjustment Assistance
The Congressional Research Service identified 7 tax credits for individuals that expired at the end of 2013, and another 49 aimed at businesses and investors. If one were also considering a general revision of the tax code, thousands of special tax breaks could come under scrutiny.
The key point with all of these "tax hikes" is that they all have a commonality of special exemption, which should not be part of any tax system. The only reason they are there is for political gain by Congress and others in government to buy votes to continue to hold their jobs.
I am normally an opponent to new federal taxes, because increased revenue to the federal government only increases the size and power of government, which is already excessive. However in this case, I agree with the tax hikes, because it starts to bring realism to the whole economic and tax system of government. Hopefully, the more the public recognizes tax reality, the greater will be its resistance to further taxes.
Unfortunately according to the Washington Times, Congress is likely to reinstitute many of these exemptions to individuals and special groups.
Looking at the bigger picture one can easily see that Congressional buying of votes through special exemptions is a motivating force for this inequality. The only solution is for each Representative and Senator to have a term limit for his employment by government. Only then will Representatives and Senators be able to keep their eye on the ball of what is best for the country and its citizens. I encourage all new contenders for a congressional office to indicate whether they are for or against congressional term limits, and the public should pay close attention to that reply and vote only for those who say they will vote for congressional term limits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
