Open email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
I have read your memo to house member colleagues on the separation of powers in the federal government.
For those who will not read the memo, it refers to Article II, Section III of the Constitution of the United States, which dictates that the president, as head of the Executive Branch of our government, “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, even if the president does not agree with the purpose of that law." Under the Constitution’s separation of powers principle, only the Legislative Branch has the power to legislate.
Your memo points out that Pres. Obama has selectively enforced some laws, ignored other laws, and in some cases has made his own law modifications. You say, "I believe the House must act as an institution to defend the constitutional principles at stake and to protect our system of government and our economy from continued executive abuse. The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our country. When this legislation is introduced in the coming weeks, I ask that you review it and join me in supporting it when it goes before the House."
Speaker Boehner, I wholeheartedly agree with your concern. It is absolutely necessary to protect the integrity of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the sections related to separation of powers and responsibilities for each section.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Middle East Base to Attack the US
The Washington Times says the al Qaeda-linked army now conquering territory in Syria and Iraq ultimately wants its new Islamic state to be a launching pad for attacking the U.S. homeland, says a new congressional report.
So, what’s new?
I can name a handful of countries where that’s true. Just for starters, consider Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Philippines, Somalia, Pakistan, and Indonesia. The militant Muslims in each of those countries want to convert their countries to attack stations to hit the US. In addition, there are a few other countries who would like to hit us hard, even without the Muslim incentive. They are North Korea and Cuba.
Let’s not be blindsided by a “new congressional report” implying that this is something new, in order to stir up the public to war fever to again try to take over the Middle East for nation building purposes but actually using homeland security as an excuse. Without even looking I’ll bet warmonger John McCain is involved somehow in the “congressional report”.
So, what’s new?
I can name a handful of countries where that’s true. Just for starters, consider Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Philippines, Somalia, Pakistan, and Indonesia. The militant Muslims in each of those countries want to convert their countries to attack stations to hit the US. In addition, there are a few other countries who would like to hit us hard, even without the Muslim incentive. They are North Korea and Cuba.
Let’s not be blindsided by a “new congressional report” implying that this is something new, in order to stir up the public to war fever to again try to take over the Middle East for nation building purposes but actually using homeland security as an excuse. Without even looking I’ll bet warmonger John McCain is involved somehow in the “congressional report”.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Gun Ownership
I have been wrestling with this topic for several days. The Washington Times reports that the Supreme Court tightened restrictions on gun purchases.
The Supreme Court case involved a former police officer who thought he could get a discount on guns, and offered to buy one for his uncle. He bought a Glock 19 and listed himself as the buyer, clearing a federal background check. He then transferred the gun to his uncle, again done through a federally licensed dealer, clearing a background check in compliance with state law. But federal prosecuting authorities said that he violated the law, since he wasn’t the true purchaser.
The Supreme Court sided with the federal prosecutors and said that the government can be strict in trying to weed out potential “straw” buyers who plan to traffic the weapons. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion and said “No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun’s purchaser — the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer”.
My first reaction was that of annoyance. I felt that in ruling on this case, the US Supreme Court was still attacking the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a simple statement reading as follows: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Notice that the part concerning a “well-regulated militia” is given as a justification for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not say that private gun ownership requires proof that the weapon will be involved in a militia. In other words, the absolute meaning of the separate Second Amendment is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that such right should not be infringed.
“Infringed” means some hindrance imposed by laws or regulations from the federal government, state government or municipalities. The realistic aspect of infringement is that all forms of government have been involved, through such technicalities as licensing, passing background checks, limitations on areas where guns may be carried, etc. The latest infringement is the case of the police officer buying a gun for his uncle. From the point of view of the Second Amendment, the police officer can do that, and the fact that the Supreme Court says he cannot is an infringement contrary to the Second Amendment.
From that position I started to investigate within the Constitution whether members of the Supreme Court could be impeached. There is no clear statement, such as that concerning the President. There is only an implication that it could be done.
In subsequent open conversation, I was exposed to a second opinion. This came about by direct consideration of whether a person should be walking around the mall with an AK-47 and whether a mentally deficient person had the right to own a portable atomic weapon, if or when any such weapon ever existed.
In considering that aspect, it became clear that the written Second Amendment to the Constitution is insufficient in the context of modern society. This does not mean that the Constitution and the first 10 amendments should be basically abolished because it is outdated, as some liberals propose.
The best approach appears to be to judge the Constitution as a basic document always with the possibility of updating by the built-in procedure of establishing further amendments. For example, if it is thought that the Second Amendment is insufficiently written, as I now believe it is, it can be revised and updated by Congress with an additional amendment.
The fact that it has not been considered for amendment seems to be primarily based upon extreme differences of opinion within the society. Many believe that any citizen should have an opportunity to own a firearm; unimpeded by any form of government, as I had initially believed. Others believe that no citizen should own a firearm. This leaves Congress in a state of indecision as to how to proceed with respect to the desires of its constituency. The situation is similar to public opinion and lack of legislative action by Congress on abortion.
Since Congress has been unable to establish details which would better explain the conditions of gun ownership, the Supreme Court must deal with the limited information which it has. That includes the Second Amendment as written along with current practices in situations within our society. It may be that the Supreme Court generally has a mindset to eliminate gun ownership by individuals, but there is no proof of that. Until Congress establishes another amendment on gun ownership, which is likely never to happen, the Supreme Court is obviously free to establish what many may consider further infringements of ownership.
The Supreme Court case involved a former police officer who thought he could get a discount on guns, and offered to buy one for his uncle. He bought a Glock 19 and listed himself as the buyer, clearing a federal background check. He then transferred the gun to his uncle, again done through a federally licensed dealer, clearing a background check in compliance with state law. But federal prosecuting authorities said that he violated the law, since he wasn’t the true purchaser.
The Supreme Court sided with the federal prosecutors and said that the government can be strict in trying to weed out potential “straw” buyers who plan to traffic the weapons. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion and said “No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun’s purchaser — the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer”.
My first reaction was that of annoyance. I felt that in ruling on this case, the US Supreme Court was still attacking the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a simple statement reading as follows: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Notice that the part concerning a “well-regulated militia” is given as a justification for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not say that private gun ownership requires proof that the weapon will be involved in a militia. In other words, the absolute meaning of the separate Second Amendment is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that such right should not be infringed.
“Infringed” means some hindrance imposed by laws or regulations from the federal government, state government or municipalities. The realistic aspect of infringement is that all forms of government have been involved, through such technicalities as licensing, passing background checks, limitations on areas where guns may be carried, etc. The latest infringement is the case of the police officer buying a gun for his uncle. From the point of view of the Second Amendment, the police officer can do that, and the fact that the Supreme Court says he cannot is an infringement contrary to the Second Amendment.
From that position I started to investigate within the Constitution whether members of the Supreme Court could be impeached. There is no clear statement, such as that concerning the President. There is only an implication that it could be done.
In subsequent open conversation, I was exposed to a second opinion. This came about by direct consideration of whether a person should be walking around the mall with an AK-47 and whether a mentally deficient person had the right to own a portable atomic weapon, if or when any such weapon ever existed.
In considering that aspect, it became clear that the written Second Amendment to the Constitution is insufficient in the context of modern society. This does not mean that the Constitution and the first 10 amendments should be basically abolished because it is outdated, as some liberals propose.
The best approach appears to be to judge the Constitution as a basic document always with the possibility of updating by the built-in procedure of establishing further amendments. For example, if it is thought that the Second Amendment is insufficiently written, as I now believe it is, it can be revised and updated by Congress with an additional amendment.
The fact that it has not been considered for amendment seems to be primarily based upon extreme differences of opinion within the society. Many believe that any citizen should have an opportunity to own a firearm; unimpeded by any form of government, as I had initially believed. Others believe that no citizen should own a firearm. This leaves Congress in a state of indecision as to how to proceed with respect to the desires of its constituency. The situation is similar to public opinion and lack of legislative action by Congress on abortion.
Since Congress has been unable to establish details which would better explain the conditions of gun ownership, the Supreme Court must deal with the limited information which it has. That includes the Second Amendment as written along with current practices in situations within our society. It may be that the Supreme Court generally has a mindset to eliminate gun ownership by individuals, but there is no proof of that. Until Congress establishes another amendment on gun ownership, which is likely never to happen, the Supreme Court is obviously free to establish what many may consider further infringements of ownership.
Middle East Stability
The Washington
Times says that Pres. Obama rejects 'Whack-A-Mole” strategy to counter
extremists in the Middle East . It seems that the
term ” Whack-a-Mole” was coined by the White House and means sending US troops
to occupy various countries, wherever terrorist organizations pop up. The President
used the term in defending his administration’s handling of the Middle East
crisis and in response the lawmaker’s warnings that the entire country of Iraq
is in danger.
Critics say Mr. Obama’s tack is further proof that his foreign policy over the past five years has created conditions that now threaten the stability of the wholeMiddle
East .
Critics say Mr. Obama’s tack is further proof that his foreign policy over the past five years has created conditions that now threaten the stability of the whole
I
usually find it extremely difficult to support Pres. Obama in anything he says
or does. However, I agree with him completely in this case.
What is
taking place in Iraq is not
now threatening the stability of the whole Middle East .
There has been no stability in the Middle East
for the last few thousand years. The only semblance of stability has been an
occasional pause in fighting.
With respect
to Iraq
itself, it was stable until President Bush decided to depose Saddam Hussein. We
are now seeing a civil war to decide who controls the country. Anything that
the US may do in Iraq would only
be a short-term solution to stop military action. In the long run, Middle East populations will always resort to violence,
as they have practiced for the last two centuries or more.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Pakistani/US Negotiations
I previously noted from the Washington Times that a top Pakistani official had come to the US to cement relations with the Pentagon.
I took a cynical attitude in suggesting that the only reason the Pakistani came was to bolster the probability of continuing to receive his $1 billion per year from us.. I also said a favorable aspect might be that we might negotiate some sort of control on anti-US terrorist activities in Pakistan in return for our $1 billion. My further cynicism was that we would probably lose out in any negotiation of that type.
One of our Political Associates commented on my statements as follows: “You are so right about the Pakistanis ability to out-negotiate the Americans! In most cases, the negotiators who are on the American side are extreme liberals who believe that it is our duty and their goal to pour out our treasure (not to mention our future) to anyone who asks for it. It would be considered flying in the face of everything they stand for if our American "values" were ever brought to the table as a standard for receiving our money. To the liberals this would be considered immoral. The Pakistani negotiators, however, have their own set of morals. Morality to them means to get whatever they can of ours, using any method of deceit that may be necessary.”
I took a cynical attitude in suggesting that the only reason the Pakistani came was to bolster the probability of continuing to receive his $1 billion per year from us.. I also said a favorable aspect might be that we might negotiate some sort of control on anti-US terrorist activities in Pakistan in return for our $1 billion. My further cynicism was that we would probably lose out in any negotiation of that type.
One of our Political Associates commented on my statements as follows: “You are so right about the Pakistanis ability to out-negotiate the Americans! In most cases, the negotiators who are on the American side are extreme liberals who believe that it is our duty and their goal to pour out our treasure (not to mention our future) to anyone who asks for it. It would be considered flying in the face of everything they stand for if our American "values" were ever brought to the table as a standard for receiving our money. To the liberals this would be considered immoral. The Pakistani negotiators, however, have their own set of morals. Morality to them means to get whatever they can of ours, using any method of deceit that may be necessary.”
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Negotiations with Pakistan
The Washington Times says that a Pakistan military chief quietly met with Pentagon brass to
smooth relations.
Why
would a Pakistan Pakistan wants to continue receiving its billion
dollars per year from the US
However,
this action could be good. Rather than continue to give Pakistan $1 billion a year with no strings
attached, we now have an opportunity to negotiate a position with respect to the
Pakistani government on handling terrorists against the US
The
only problem with this is that the Pakistanis will out-negotiate us every time.
One of the ways they will do this is to make promises, which they will not keep.
They will find many excuses to justify why they would not be able to completely
fulfill any commitments to the US
Putin is Laughing!
Putin is
laughing, because he knows things are going his way!
How?
From Russian
history.
Stalin had
built a vast complex of countries in northern Europe called the Soviet Union,
with Russia
in charge. He also had designs on taking over Eastern and Western
Europe . He succeeded with Eastern Europe, but was thwarted on
Western Europe as the US
established a collateral military defense (NATO) against the Soviet
Union .
Ronald Reagan
then took over to eliminate the Soviet Union .
He forced the Soviets to spend on military hardware, especially atomic, until
they were bankrupt and the whole Soviet system collapsed.
Putin now
wants to reestablish the Soviet Union , and in
doing so, he can be completely passive. Whereas Reagan forced the Soviet Union
into collapse, the US
is on a course of self-destruction, with no required action on Putin’s part.
Putin sees the
US as being on the verge of
bankruptcy, with a $17 trillion debt from a number of major internal expenses
primarily intended to equalize the economic status of all US citizens.
This is a socialist idea, but one that never achieved any status in Russia ,
the so-called fatherland of socialism. The Russian government controlled every
movement of Russian citizens and were never generous in opening government
coffers to the Russian people.
The Russian
government was also astute in its expansionist learnings. It felt that
controlling Afghanistan as
part of the Soviet Union would be a strategic
asset. However, it found that militarily it was almost impossible, and using good
judgment it withdrew. The Russian government was further astute in recognizing
that it should not meddle with the Middle East, because the Middle
East was and is a quagmire of political and military action, which
would never lead to any form of stability
So, Putin is
laughing! He now sees the great semi-bankrupt US falling into the quagmire of
the Middle East , where it will spend billions
and billions of dollars more to accelerate real bankruptcy. With the demise of
NATO, Russia will take over
all of Europe . Only the new Russian Soviet
Union and China
will then stand as world leaders.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Special Ops Forces in Iraq
The Washington Times says President Obama announced Thursday that he is sending up to 300 U.S. special operations forces to Iraq as advisers to the Iraqi military in the urgent fight against advancing Sunni militants.
Bad move! Advisers to the Iraqi military against Sunni militants only create more antagonism against the US by Sunnis. We should not be taking sides with one religious group or another, or with a puppet government.
I have said before and repeat that we should get our 1000 plus government employees in embassies and consulates out of Iraq as quickly as possible. The special ops forces could aid in that endeavor, which would be a positive rather than in operation to make more enemies.
Some are also concerned that Iraq can serve as a basis for terrorist training camps administration. US Special ops forces could serve as guidance and support for drone and conventional bombing attacks against those terrorist installations.
In other words, there are plenty of things that the special ops forces could do, and I’m not opposed to sending them to Iraq. What I am opposed to is having been involved in the Iraqi civil war.
Bad move! Advisers to the Iraqi military against Sunni militants only create more antagonism against the US by Sunnis. We should not be taking sides with one religious group or another, or with a puppet government.
I have said before and repeat that we should get our 1000 plus government employees in embassies and consulates out of Iraq as quickly as possible. The special ops forces could aid in that endeavor, which would be a positive rather than in operation to make more enemies.
Some are also concerned that Iraq can serve as a basis for terrorist training camps administration. US Special ops forces could serve as guidance and support for drone and conventional bombing attacks against those terrorist installations.
In other words, there are plenty of things that the special ops forces could do, and I’m not opposed to sending them to Iraq. What I am opposed to is having been involved in the Iraqi civil war.
Handling Illegal Immigrant Children in Texas
Open Fax to Gov. Rick Perry (TX):
Dear Gov. Perry,
The
Washington Times says that In a media tour yesterday of a U.S. Border Patrol
processing facility at Nogales, AZ, at least 100 children were doing what
children normally do: playing basketball with border agents, watching World Cup
soccer, resting on mats with Mylar blankets, talking in groups. But mainly
waiting.
For what?
It’s unclear. The Border Patrol has set up 40 telephones at the giant
air-conditioned warehouse in order to contact the children’s relatives, but the
unaccompanied minors who spilled over the border in the past year weren’t lost.
They came to
stay, but officials stressed Wednesday that the Nogales processing center is only temporary.
From there, children are sent to private shelters or temporary housing at
military bases in California , Oklahoma and Texas ,
but even those facilities are filling up.
At least
90,000 children, mostly from Guatemala ,
Honduras and El Salvador ,
will be caught this year, and more than 140,000 will be apprehended in 2015,
according to an internal U.S. Customs and Border Protection memo.
Apparently
the illegal immigrant children are detainees of the US Border Control. Note above that
from the US
border control detention facilities, the children are sent to private shelters
or temporary housing at military bases in several states. I will speak only
concerning Texas .
We
don’t want to waste time with telephone calls trying to find relatives in the US or on court
hearings. Ship the children back home and they can look for US-based relatives
from their home countries. When they are back home, we also don’t need court
hearings.
For
those persons who have an abused compassion for the welfare of the children, we
handle that by accepting volunteers to accompany the children to their home
countries and see that they are well taken care of during the trip and after
their arrival at home. Those volunteers should immediately apply for transit
visas through Mexico and
visas to Guatemala , Honduras and El Salvador
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Government Agency R&D Grants
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:
The House of Representatives controls the purse strings of the US. As Speaker, you have significant influence on how much money is spent and where it is spent on government operations.
The House now makes available more than $140 billion each year for various government agencies to dole out to pseudoscientists in educational institutions for ostensible research and development. The latest approved amount is slightly more than a 1% increase over the previous year.
For some time, I have been advising you to radically cut this expenditure. I’ve said this in relation to how the money is actually spent, which also relates to my use of the term pseudoscientists. A significant portion of the dole-outs to the University scientists is tainted with political innuendo. For example, receivers of grants on global warming must come up with some positive information to facilitate Obama’s agenda of capping carbon dioxide emissions and taxing same. Because the University scientists are well aware of the answers that they must come up with in order to have any chance at further grants, they are effectively selling their scientific integrity, which is why I call them pseudoscientists.
With that background, I now refer to an article by Andrea Widener in the June 2 issue of Chemical & Engineering News. The article is entitled, “Paperwork Paralysis” and essentially covers paperwork requirements by pseudoscientists with respect to their receiving money grants. It is said that in most cases, individual investigators are allowed to spend a maximum of 26% of grant funds for administration. However, the article says that many of the, so-called researchers spend approximately 50% related to grant funds for administration. Presumably the difference of 24% comes out of their own pockets or more likely from the Universities.
I am glad to see progress in inhibiting this kind of politically tainted socialistic spending of taxpayer money. If the House is unable to control its propensity for spending, at least reducing the incentive of recipients to receive grants is some progress in the right direction. In other words, if you can’t cut the funding, load it up with paperwork to make it less attractive to the political hacks
The House of Representatives controls the purse strings of the US. As Speaker, you have significant influence on how much money is spent and where it is spent on government operations.
The House now makes available more than $140 billion each year for various government agencies to dole out to pseudoscientists in educational institutions for ostensible research and development. The latest approved amount is slightly more than a 1% increase over the previous year.
For some time, I have been advising you to radically cut this expenditure. I’ve said this in relation to how the money is actually spent, which also relates to my use of the term pseudoscientists. A significant portion of the dole-outs to the University scientists is tainted with political innuendo. For example, receivers of grants on global warming must come up with some positive information to facilitate Obama’s agenda of capping carbon dioxide emissions and taxing same. Because the University scientists are well aware of the answers that they must come up with in order to have any chance at further grants, they are effectively selling their scientific integrity, which is why I call them pseudoscientists.
With that background, I now refer to an article by Andrea Widener in the June 2 issue of Chemical & Engineering News. The article is entitled, “Paperwork Paralysis” and essentially covers paperwork requirements by pseudoscientists with respect to their receiving money grants. It is said that in most cases, individual investigators are allowed to spend a maximum of 26% of grant funds for administration. However, the article says that many of the, so-called researchers spend approximately 50% related to grant funds for administration. Presumably the difference of 24% comes out of their own pockets or more likely from the Universities.
I am glad to see progress in inhibiting this kind of politically tainted socialistic spending of taxpayer money. If the House is unable to control its propensity for spending, at least reducing the incentive of recipients to receive grants is some progress in the right direction. In other words, if you can’t cut the funding, load it up with paperwork to make it less attractive to the political hacks
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
States Rights
Open Fax to Gov. Perry (TX):
Dear Gov. Perry,
According to Jeff Johnson writing in the June 19 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, the EPA is proposing reductions on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Let’s not be deceived by the use of the word “proposing”. You can be sure that the EPA means to establish a reduced carbon dioxide emission standard and enforce it as a regulation.
The EPA has the power to do this, based on the Clean Air Act established by Congress. The Clean Air Act did not establish that carbon dioxide was an air contaminant. That interpretation was introduced by the EPA based upon Pres. Obama’s agenda to convert the US and the world as much as possible to the use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar.
The Obama agenda is economically unsound and is not based on scientific fact that carbon dioxide is an air contaminant. However, that is not the main point of this fax.
I draw to your attention that, if Jeff Johnson is correct, the EPA proposal would require state governments to develop plans by June 2016 that would result in a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and that the reduction would actually be achieved in 2030.
I regard this is a brazen attempt on the part of the EPA to direct operations of state governments.
As I remember the Constitution, it basically set out what the federal government could and could not do, and wherever there was no specificity, state governments had control. I do not recall anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government, including any of its agencies, had the right to require state governments to enforce federal laws or agency regulations.
The question to you then is whether you intend to allow the EPA to browbeat you into a ridiculous plan to control carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and presumably enforce established regulations as state law sometime in the future.
May I strongly suggest that you advise the EPA that you have a sufficient workload in enforcing state laws, and have no time to be involved in enforcing federal laws or regulations, which are not your constitutional responsibility?
Dear Gov. Perry,
According to Jeff Johnson writing in the June 19 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, the EPA is proposing reductions on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Let’s not be deceived by the use of the word “proposing”. You can be sure that the EPA means to establish a reduced carbon dioxide emission standard and enforce it as a regulation.
The EPA has the power to do this, based on the Clean Air Act established by Congress. The Clean Air Act did not establish that carbon dioxide was an air contaminant. That interpretation was introduced by the EPA based upon Pres. Obama’s agenda to convert the US and the world as much as possible to the use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar.
The Obama agenda is economically unsound and is not based on scientific fact that carbon dioxide is an air contaminant. However, that is not the main point of this fax.
I draw to your attention that, if Jeff Johnson is correct, the EPA proposal would require state governments to develop plans by June 2016 that would result in a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and that the reduction would actually be achieved in 2030.
I regard this is a brazen attempt on the part of the EPA to direct operations of state governments.
As I remember the Constitution, it basically set out what the federal government could and could not do, and wherever there was no specificity, state governments had control. I do not recall anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government, including any of its agencies, had the right to require state governments to enforce federal laws or agency regulations.
The question to you then is whether you intend to allow the EPA to browbeat you into a ridiculous plan to control carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and presumably enforce established regulations as state law sometime in the future.
May I strongly suggest that you advise the EPA that you have a sufficient workload in enforcing state laws, and have no time to be involved in enforcing federal laws or regulations, which are not your constitutional responsibility?
Monday, June 16, 2014
Lost Lois Lerner Emails
The Washington Times says that the IRS has told Congress it has lost some of former employee Lois G. Lerner’s emails from 2009 through 2011, including those she sent to other federal agencies.
It’s possible, but with a government having a track record of deception, it’s a little hard to believe.
Why not go to the other federal agencies and ask if they have any emails received from Lois letter? My computer has a file of all emails I have received, unless I purposely delete them.
It’s possible, but with a government having a track record of deception, it’s a little hard to believe.
Why not go to the other federal agencies and ask if they have any emails received from Lois letter? My computer has a file of all emails I have received, unless I purposely delete them.
US Program for Iraq
The Washington Times has three stories on recent events in Iraq. They are:
1. Caught off guard by al Qaeda uprising, Obama considers more aid to Iraq in fight against jihadis
2. Obama: No combat troops in Iraq
3. Obama considers more aid to Iraq after stunning militant attacks
I have one simple suggestion, which he has apparently not considered; GET OUT. Use the playbook from Vietnam. Close the Embassy and fly all American employees of the Embassy, Consulates, and any other operations, including US troops, out as fast as you can.
We upset the balance of power when we invaded Iraq and killed Saddam Hussein. The resulting turmoil could have been easily anticipated, but what has been done is done. We have no basis to choose between Shiites and Sunnis. If we do anything militarily, it would be only on a temporary basis. The internal fighting will again start as soon as possible, and also we must remember that there is absolutely no possibility that we could democratize the Middle East from a base in Iraq.
We have also goofed up Syria by tipping off insurgent groups that we would support them in any attempted coup against Pres. Assad.
Our meddling in the Middle East has created long-term grievances against the US. These will be the basis of terrorist operations against the US after the region re-stabilizes itself into some kind of order.
We have done tremendous damage already. Do we want to do more by supplying military assistance to one side or the other?
1. Caught off guard by al Qaeda uprising, Obama considers more aid to Iraq in fight against jihadis
2. Obama: No combat troops in Iraq
3. Obama considers more aid to Iraq after stunning militant attacks
I have one simple suggestion, which he has apparently not considered; GET OUT. Use the playbook from Vietnam. Close the Embassy and fly all American employees of the Embassy, Consulates, and any other operations, including US troops, out as fast as you can.
We upset the balance of power when we invaded Iraq and killed Saddam Hussein. The resulting turmoil could have been easily anticipated, but what has been done is done. We have no basis to choose between Shiites and Sunnis. If we do anything militarily, it would be only on a temporary basis. The internal fighting will again start as soon as possible, and also we must remember that there is absolutely no possibility that we could democratize the Middle East from a base in Iraq.
We have also goofed up Syria by tipping off insurgent groups that we would support them in any attempted coup against Pres. Assad.
Our meddling in the Middle East has created long-term grievances against the US. These will be the basis of terrorist operations against the US after the region re-stabilizes itself into some kind of order.
We have done tremendous damage already. Do we want to do more by supplying military assistance to one side or the other?
Return Illegal Immigrant Children to Their Home Countries
Open Fax to Gov. Rick Perry (TX):
Dear Gov. Perry,
Television news reports that our southern border is loaded with many children and fewer adults from Central America, who have no visas to enter the United States.
I humbly suggest the following program to handle this difficult situation.
1. Since we are on summer vacation, there are thousands of school buses available. Use these buses to transport the illegals back to their home countries.
2. Use Texas border control agents or qualified volunteers to drive the buses loaded with illegals to their home countries and return empty to the US.
3. I’ve heard that somebody said he had never made so many sandwiches in his whole life. This implies that some American volunteers are using this method to sustain the illegals. Ridiculous! If illegals, including children, are capable of coming to the US southern border, they are certainly capable of making their own sandwiches. Load the buses with sufficient stacks of bread and peanut butter and boiled rice to sustain the occupants on the return trips to their home countries. Also load cases of bottled water and supply port-a-potties. The occupants should be expected to feed themselves and empty and clean their port-a-potties.
4. Each bus should carry a large sign in Spanish and English saying, “Return of Illegal Immigrants to Home Countries ”.
Dr. Arthur C Sucsy
4203 96th St.
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net
Dear Gov. Perry,
Television news reports that our southern border is loaded with many children and fewer adults from Central America, who have no visas to enter the United States.
I humbly suggest the following program to handle this difficult situation.
1. Since we are on summer vacation, there are thousands of school buses available. Use these buses to transport the illegals back to their home countries.
2. Use Texas border control agents or qualified volunteers to drive the buses loaded with illegals to their home countries and return empty to the US.
3. I’ve heard that somebody said he had never made so many sandwiches in his whole life. This implies that some American volunteers are using this method to sustain the illegals. Ridiculous! If illegals, including children, are capable of coming to the US southern border, they are certainly capable of making their own sandwiches. Load the buses with sufficient stacks of bread and peanut butter and boiled rice to sustain the occupants on the return trips to their home countries. Also load cases of bottled water and supply port-a-potties. The occupants should be expected to feed themselves and empty and clean their port-a-potties.
4. Each bus should carry a large sign in Spanish and English saying, “Return of Illegal Immigrants to Home Countries ”.
Dr. Arthur C Sucsy
4203 96th St.
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net
Central American Kids Flooding Our Southern Border
Open Fax to Gov. Perry (TX):
Dear Gov. Perry,
Dear Gov. Perry,
We hear about a multitude of people
crossing the border, mostly kids from Central
America . Please absolutely close that border. You have a National
Guard. Use it.
Those who are caught crossing the
border, should be immediately placed on a bus, including kids with or without
adults, and sent back to Central America . Feed them minimally and supply
port-a-potty's for the trip home. All costs should be passed to the taxpayer as
a continuing necessity for maintaining the state.
PS: Your phone mailbox was
loaded, and I couldn’t leave a phone message
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Dave Brat's Win in Virginia
Dave Brat gave House Majority Leader Eric Cantor a stunning defeat in the Virginia Republican Primary. The numbers were 56% for Brat and 44% to Cantor. This resulted in Cantor's resigning as House Majority Leader.
Dave Brat was a Tea Party supported candidate, but the Tea Party gave him no money. Many reasons have been given for this extraordinary turnover, but I heard Dave Brat speak. His message was that we are all tired of the shenanigans in Washington and want it stopped. At least the people in the Seventh Congressional District strongly believed in his position.
While the Democrats were crowing about a division within the Republican Party, I view this is a very significant indication of the Republicans ability to start recouping some power in the destination of US government. Eric Cantor was a member of the old guard, and the old guard is on its way out. New younger Republicans are basically libertarians, but are smart enough to realize that defecting to the Libertarian party would be a disaster for any of their attempts at control. In effect, they are trying to push out or at least change the positions of the old Republican guard. I think they have a good chance of doing so and hope they are successful.
Dave Brat was a Tea Party supported candidate, but the Tea Party gave him no money. Many reasons have been given for this extraordinary turnover, but I heard Dave Brat speak. His message was that we are all tired of the shenanigans in Washington and want it stopped. At least the people in the Seventh Congressional District strongly believed in his position.
While the Democrats were crowing about a division within the Republican Party, I view this is a very significant indication of the Republicans ability to start recouping some power in the destination of US government. Eric Cantor was a member of the old guard, and the old guard is on its way out. New younger Republicans are basically libertarians, but are smart enough to realize that defecting to the Libertarian party would be a disaster for any of their attempts at control. In effect, they are trying to push out or at least change the positions of the old Republican guard. I think they have a good chance of doing so and hope they are successful.
Confusion on Iraq
There seems to be some confusion concerning Iraq on the TV news.
I was watching Fox News this morning. A commentator was reporting that insurgent groups had captured two or three cities in Iraq. The commentator was bemoaning the fact that we had spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to come to this loss. He blamed it on the Obama Administration for having withdrawn US troops from Iraq too early.
However, let's look at a little of the recent history and put this in perspective with respect to cultural differences between Middle Easterners and Americans.
President Bush decided to invade Iraq, because he perceived Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a "clear and present danger" to the US. I did not perceive it in the same way. My positive aspects were that Saddam Hussein had a well-organized country and had kept insurgents under control by jailing or killing them. In addition, he was always a threat to Iran, having engaged Iran in at least one recent war. It is unclear to me why President Bush thought that Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger.
We then invaded Iraq with the stated intention of deposing Saddam Hussein. I believe we also had in mind that we should be converting Iraq to a democratic country in the Middle East, to further our continuing attempts at nationbuilding. In this case, Iraq would serve as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, and theoretically the whole of the Middle East could be democratized. We were successful in the stated intention. We killed Saddam Hussein. While this supposedly left the country open to democratization, it also offered a great opportunity for various insurgent groups to struggle for control.
Now let's take a look at cultural differences between Middle Easterners and Americans.. Culture is made up of two factors; belief in an unknown, which we generally categorize as religion, and practices which have existed for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. American religious beliefs are primarily Christian. Middle Eastern religious beliefs are primarily Muslim. However, the two eligions are somewhat similar in that both contain the concept of a "hereafter". For Muslims, the personal benefits in the hereafter are significantly better than the present benefits of life. For Christians, the personal benefits of the hereafter are less so. This leads to the fact that Muslims are usually much more willing to die for a cause than are Americans. This is demonstrated in the fact that Muslims usually engage in physical means to resolve disputes. Americans are much more inclined to use negotiation for resolution of disputes. In simple terms, insurgent Middle East groups will use killing of the enemy in order to establish control, while Americans will use verbal persuasion to establish control.
In addition, Middle Easterners have two cultural practices which Americans usually abhor or at least do not accept. Lying is considered by Middle Easterners to be an acceptable practice, even if not promoted. Secondly, perceived injustices by individuals or groups will remain for hundreds if not thousands of years as a basis for antagonism and retribution. For Americans, the Hatfield and McCoy controversy is funny. For middle Easterners, similar situations are a way of life.
So, we can now go back to consider Iraq. Prior to the US invasion, Iraq was a stabilized country under the domination of Saddam Hussein. Iraq also made a contribution to the world economy by reason of its production of oil. In effect, oil gave Saddam Hussein the power of an advanced economic society. As can be expected, it also attracted insurgent groups, who desired the personal advantages of power and high living conditions enjoyed by Saddam Hussein and his associates. As mentioned before, Saddam Hussein kept the insurgency under control through use of jail and killing.
When the US invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, insurgency groups immediately arose to take Saddam Hussein's place. Those groups fought among themselves to obtain a first position and were all controlled, at least in part, by the presence of American military forces. When Obama decided to move out the American military forces, this left the insurgents with the ability to fight among themselves which would result in one of the groups being a winner to control the country and reap the benefits of oil production. This has now apparently happened, with an insurgent group having taken over two or three Iraqi cities. We don't know which group this is, and it doesn't make any difference. One or the other would be the same. If having obtained a semblance of control, this will be extended to full control using the same techniques previously employed by Saddam Hussein; jail or kill the opposition. In any event, it makes no difference to the US, as long as the controlling group concentrates on consolidating its position of controland establishing a military power base so that it cannot be easily invaded by other Middle Eastern countries.
With that all said, we now must inject the other cultural aspect of grievances. Middle Easterners have a long-term grievance against Jews. There is no way that they will ever be talked out of this position. Therefore, they will individually attack Israel militarily whenever the odds seem to be reasonably in their favor. The likelihood of a Middle East country consolidation against Israel is remote, because Middle Easterners and theirt countries are normally opposed to consolidation. They are strong proponents of individual liberties. Take another look at the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" to understand this point.
Other than perceived injustices by Israel, Middle Easterners also have a shorter-term perception of injustices by the US. Much of this involves its support of Israel. However, Middle Eastern countries have no significant opportunity to militarily attack the US. However, insurgent groups of radical Muslims, which we deem terrorists, have a long-term interest in making Americans as miserable as possible, through terrorist activities. Those terrorist groups always have need for physical bases from which to operate. Most Middle East countries are sympathetic enough so that they will supply such bases. Some recent examples are Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia.
So, what is it that the US should do with respect to the Middle East?
First, allow all military operations within any Middle East countries or among Middle East countries to proceed without any intervention by the US. Let these people struggle for power through the standard procedures that they have used for thousands of years. The more the struggling, the better, since there are then less time and facilities to devote to grievances against the US by use of terrorist activities.
Make it clear that the full power of the US military will come down on any Middle East country or insurgent group that attacks Israel.
Internally promote the development of oil and gas in the US in order to become less dependent on Middle East oil and thus avoid any need for US military operations in the Middle East in order to obtain an appropriate supply.
The US must maintain vigilance against terrorist groups operating against the US. Middle East countries should be notified that with or without permission of the host country, any terrorist bases of military training or administration will be targets of US attack.
Finally, the US should give up any idea of democratizing the Middle East; nationbuilding. Middle East cultural aspects involving religion and grievances make this an impossible task.
I was watching Fox News this morning. A commentator was reporting that insurgent groups had captured two or three cities in Iraq. The commentator was bemoaning the fact that we had spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to come to this loss. He blamed it on the Obama Administration for having withdrawn US troops from Iraq too early.
However, let's look at a little of the recent history and put this in perspective with respect to cultural differences between Middle Easterners and Americans.
President Bush decided to invade Iraq, because he perceived Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a "clear and present danger" to the US. I did not perceive it in the same way. My positive aspects were that Saddam Hussein had a well-organized country and had kept insurgents under control by jailing or killing them. In addition, he was always a threat to Iran, having engaged Iran in at least one recent war. It is unclear to me why President Bush thought that Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger.
We then invaded Iraq with the stated intention of deposing Saddam Hussein. I believe we also had in mind that we should be converting Iraq to a democratic country in the Middle East, to further our continuing attempts at nationbuilding. In this case, Iraq would serve as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, and theoretically the whole of the Middle East could be democratized. We were successful in the stated intention. We killed Saddam Hussein. While this supposedly left the country open to democratization, it also offered a great opportunity for various insurgent groups to struggle for control.
Now let's take a look at cultural differences between Middle Easterners and Americans.. Culture is made up of two factors; belief in an unknown, which we generally categorize as religion, and practices which have existed for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. American religious beliefs are primarily Christian. Middle Eastern religious beliefs are primarily Muslim. However, the two eligions are somewhat similar in that both contain the concept of a "hereafter". For Muslims, the personal benefits in the hereafter are significantly better than the present benefits of life. For Christians, the personal benefits of the hereafter are less so. This leads to the fact that Muslims are usually much more willing to die for a cause than are Americans. This is demonstrated in the fact that Muslims usually engage in physical means to resolve disputes. Americans are much more inclined to use negotiation for resolution of disputes. In simple terms, insurgent Middle East groups will use killing of the enemy in order to establish control, while Americans will use verbal persuasion to establish control.
In addition, Middle Easterners have two cultural practices which Americans usually abhor or at least do not accept. Lying is considered by Middle Easterners to be an acceptable practice, even if not promoted. Secondly, perceived injustices by individuals or groups will remain for hundreds if not thousands of years as a basis for antagonism and retribution. For Americans, the Hatfield and McCoy controversy is funny. For middle Easterners, similar situations are a way of life.
So, we can now go back to consider Iraq. Prior to the US invasion, Iraq was a stabilized country under the domination of Saddam Hussein. Iraq also made a contribution to the world economy by reason of its production of oil. In effect, oil gave Saddam Hussein the power of an advanced economic society. As can be expected, it also attracted insurgent groups, who desired the personal advantages of power and high living conditions enjoyed by Saddam Hussein and his associates. As mentioned before, Saddam Hussein kept the insurgency under control through use of jail and killing.
When the US invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, insurgency groups immediately arose to take Saddam Hussein's place. Those groups fought among themselves to obtain a first position and were all controlled, at least in part, by the presence of American military forces. When Obama decided to move out the American military forces, this left the insurgents with the ability to fight among themselves which would result in one of the groups being a winner to control the country and reap the benefits of oil production. This has now apparently happened, with an insurgent group having taken over two or three Iraqi cities. We don't know which group this is, and it doesn't make any difference. One or the other would be the same. If having obtained a semblance of control, this will be extended to full control using the same techniques previously employed by Saddam Hussein; jail or kill the opposition. In any event, it makes no difference to the US, as long as the controlling group concentrates on consolidating its position of controland establishing a military power base so that it cannot be easily invaded by other Middle Eastern countries.
With that all said, we now must inject the other cultural aspect of grievances. Middle Easterners have a long-term grievance against Jews. There is no way that they will ever be talked out of this position. Therefore, they will individually attack Israel militarily whenever the odds seem to be reasonably in their favor. The likelihood of a Middle East country consolidation against Israel is remote, because Middle Easterners and theirt countries are normally opposed to consolidation. They are strong proponents of individual liberties. Take another look at the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" to understand this point.
Other than perceived injustices by Israel, Middle Easterners also have a shorter-term perception of injustices by the US. Much of this involves its support of Israel. However, Middle Eastern countries have no significant opportunity to militarily attack the US. However, insurgent groups of radical Muslims, which we deem terrorists, have a long-term interest in making Americans as miserable as possible, through terrorist activities. Those terrorist groups always have need for physical bases from which to operate. Most Middle East countries are sympathetic enough so that they will supply such bases. Some recent examples are Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia.
So, what is it that the US should do with respect to the Middle East?
First, allow all military operations within any Middle East countries or among Middle East countries to proceed without any intervention by the US. Let these people struggle for power through the standard procedures that they have used for thousands of years. The more the struggling, the better, since there are then less time and facilities to devote to grievances against the US by use of terrorist activities.
Make it clear that the full power of the US military will come down on any Middle East country or insurgent group that attacks Israel.
Internally promote the development of oil and gas in the US in order to become less dependent on Middle East oil and thus avoid any need for US military operations in the Middle East in order to obtain an appropriate supply.
The US must maintain vigilance against terrorist groups operating against the US. Middle East countries should be notified that with or without permission of the host country, any terrorist bases of military training or administration will be targets of US attack.
Finally, the US should give up any idea of democratizing the Middle East; nationbuilding. Middle East cultural aspects involving religion and grievances make this an impossible task.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Hillary Clinton Deceit
The Washington Times covers a number of issues from Hillary Clinton's new book.
Two of these are interesting in the nature of deceit.
In her book Hillary claims that when she and Bill Clinton left the White House, they were dead broke. She is referring to the time when Pres. Bill Clinton was replaced by George W. Bush on January 20, 2001. The deceit aspect of being "dead broke" implies they had no cash and no opportunity to obtain any.
The Clintons had $12 million of debt, when Pres. Bill Clinton left office. $8 million of that was paid by a Legal Defense Fund in 2001. The remaining $4 million debt was covered by a cash advance of $8 million on Hillary's book, before they left office. This would have given them net assets of $4 million.
Before Hillary retired as Secretary of State, she made $186,300 per year. Her 2011 income was $13,800,000. Last report on her net worth was $13,100,000, which did not include the value of her primary residence. She also gets an average $200,000 per speech.
Not bad for someone who claims being dead broke, and having net assets of $4 million at the same time; plus subsequent gains in 10 years to develop a net worth of almost $14 million.
We won't talk about the earnings of Bill Clinton, but you can be sure they are even better.
The second interesting thing involving deceit is Benghazi. In her book, Hillary says she would have given anything to see that Benghazi never happened. Nowhere does she address the fact that she apparently made no attempt to save her Libyan Ambassador and several of his associates as they were being attacked in Benghazi.
Two of these are interesting in the nature of deceit.
In her book Hillary claims that when she and Bill Clinton left the White House, they were dead broke. She is referring to the time when Pres. Bill Clinton was replaced by George W. Bush on January 20, 2001. The deceit aspect of being "dead broke" implies they had no cash and no opportunity to obtain any.
The Clintons had $12 million of debt, when Pres. Bill Clinton left office. $8 million of that was paid by a Legal Defense Fund in 2001. The remaining $4 million debt was covered by a cash advance of $8 million on Hillary's book, before they left office. This would have given them net assets of $4 million.
Before Hillary retired as Secretary of State, she made $186,300 per year. Her 2011 income was $13,800,000. Last report on her net worth was $13,100,000, which did not include the value of her primary residence. She also gets an average $200,000 per speech.
Not bad for someone who claims being dead broke, and having net assets of $4 million at the same time; plus subsequent gains in 10 years to develop a net worth of almost $14 million.
We won't talk about the earnings of Bill Clinton, but you can be sure they are even better.
The second interesting thing involving deceit is Benghazi. In her book, Hillary says she would have given anything to see that Benghazi never happened. Nowhere does she address the fact that she apparently made no attempt to save her Libyan Ambassador and several of his associates as they were being attacked in Benghazi.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
US Versus Russia
Prior to World War II, Germany in the form of the Nazi party tried to take military control of Western Europe. Neville Chamberlain of Britain tried to appease Hitler, which only delayed opposing military action and allowed Germany to occupy more of Western Europe. A halt was called through the Allied military invasion of Normandy, for which we just celebrated the 70th anniversary.
While the Germans were ultimately defeated in World War II, Joseph Stalin of Russia tried to pick up the same agenda started by Hitler. To counteract this, the US set up the North American Treaty Organization (NATO). It basically included most member countries of Western Europe and the United States. The agreement was that if Stalinist Russia attacked any of the NATO members, all others would come to their military aid. This held Russian expansion to a Soviet Union composed primarily of backward northern European countries and Eastern Europe.
Present Reagan eventually put the Soviet Union out of business by considerably cranking up military capability of the United States. This forced the Soviet Union to try to match that military buildup, but they were unable to do so economically, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
Vladimir Putin is currently premier of Russia. He is a member of the old guard, and we strongly suspect that he is trying to reestablish Russia as the leader country in a newly constructed Soviet Union. He has taken over the Crimea, and has made noises indicating his desire to take all of the Ukraine. A new Soviet Union, similar to Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union, would have a severe limiting effect on the personal freedoms of the people involved in the Knew Soviet Union. As a semi-pacifist, my first reaction is to let those people worry about their own personal freedoms themselves. However, the US fought a World War II in Europe to regain personal freedoms for Western Europeans. I personally have mixed feelings about the advisability of that operation, but it was done and public opinion is that it was a great success. On that basis, we would presumably do it again, but this time against the Russians rather than Nazi Germany.
However we have in the White House a peace monger. While NATO still exists and Pres. Obama has the power to use it militarily, it appears likely that he would not. At present, he appears to be traveling a course of restraint with Vladimir Putin based on sanctions, which involve economic disadvantage to Russia. Up to now, the sanctions have been minimal, but there's indication that they have been working, particularly with the threat that they could be increased to become more onerous. This may slow down or even eliminate Vladimir Putin's apparent desire for a revised Soviet Union. It's a strategy that seems to be working and to my mind much more favorable than killing hundreds of thousands of people in a military conflict, as would likely be promoted by warmonger John McCain.
I believe in general that the ideology and practices of President Barack Obama are completely wrong. But, he occasionally stumbles onto something which seems to be correct. The situation with Russia and the Ukraine seems to be one of those. I support him on these efforts, providing he uses his full hand of applying real sanctions, rather than think he can hoodwink Vladimir Putin with the usual rhetoric that he uses on the ill-informed segment of the American public.
While the Germans were ultimately defeated in World War II, Joseph Stalin of Russia tried to pick up the same agenda started by Hitler. To counteract this, the US set up the North American Treaty Organization (NATO). It basically included most member countries of Western Europe and the United States. The agreement was that if Stalinist Russia attacked any of the NATO members, all others would come to their military aid. This held Russian expansion to a Soviet Union composed primarily of backward northern European countries and Eastern Europe.
Present Reagan eventually put the Soviet Union out of business by considerably cranking up military capability of the United States. This forced the Soviet Union to try to match that military buildup, but they were unable to do so economically, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
Vladimir Putin is currently premier of Russia. He is a member of the old guard, and we strongly suspect that he is trying to reestablish Russia as the leader country in a newly constructed Soviet Union. He has taken over the Crimea, and has made noises indicating his desire to take all of the Ukraine. A new Soviet Union, similar to Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union, would have a severe limiting effect on the personal freedoms of the people involved in the Knew Soviet Union. As a semi-pacifist, my first reaction is to let those people worry about their own personal freedoms themselves. However, the US fought a World War II in Europe to regain personal freedoms for Western Europeans. I personally have mixed feelings about the advisability of that operation, but it was done and public opinion is that it was a great success. On that basis, we would presumably do it again, but this time against the Russians rather than Nazi Germany.
However we have in the White House a peace monger. While NATO still exists and Pres. Obama has the power to use it militarily, it appears likely that he would not. At present, he appears to be traveling a course of restraint with Vladimir Putin based on sanctions, which involve economic disadvantage to Russia. Up to now, the sanctions have been minimal, but there's indication that they have been working, particularly with the threat that they could be increased to become more onerous. This may slow down or even eliminate Vladimir Putin's apparent desire for a revised Soviet Union. It's a strategy that seems to be working and to my mind much more favorable than killing hundreds of thousands of people in a military conflict, as would likely be promoted by warmonger John McCain.
I believe in general that the ideology and practices of President Barack Obama are completely wrong. But, he occasionally stumbles onto something which seems to be correct. The situation with Russia and the Ukraine seems to be one of those. I support him on these efforts, providing he uses his full hand of applying real sanctions, rather than think he can hoodwink Vladimir Putin with the usual rhetoric that he uses on the ill-informed segment of the American public.
Secretary Of State Clinton on Benghazi
Open Email to Former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton:
Dear Sec. Clinton,
The Washington Times quotes the following from your new book: "There will never be perfect clarity or full agreement on everything that happened regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya — but that does not mean a lack of effort on getting to the truth."
I respectfully suggest that you are missing the point. This is not a game of truth or consequences. We the public just want to know what happened and why.
Ambassador Stevens was killed when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by Islamic militants. I believe this is factual to an episode that happened approximately 2 years ago. In addition it is also said that several other Americans were killed in that same attack. I've not heard anything which would dispute these killings.
It is also said that these killings occurred because the defenders of the Consulate were denied military assistance. That may be conjectural, but the fact that the killings occurred and there seemed to be no significant military assistance on-site makes this claim at least semi-factual. It Is this aspect of the episode on which we would like your elucidation. By that I mean, an explanation of why you apparently did not attempt to give the consulate military assistance to avoid the killings or while the attack was in progress. Since you have never commented that you did call for military assistance, we can only presume up to now that the claim of your not attempting to give any is also factual.
As Secretary of State, it is my understanding that you have the responsibility to sustain the health and welfare of Americans in US Embassies and Consulates around the world. I also believe that is indisputable, but will recognize any statement you may have to the contrary. In the absence of such statement, we will presume that you are agreed that such was your responsibility.
Perhaps you would say that you did not have control of military assets such as to apply the assistance that was apparently needed either prior to or during the terrorist attack. But, I have not heard you make any comment on that point. If we assume that you did not have direct control of military facilities to supply the needed help to the Benghazi consulate, you were the Secretary of State and presumably in close contact with Pres. Obama. The simple question is, "Did you ask Pres. Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, to supply military assistance?" If not, why not?
There have already been too many congressional hearings on the subject, but for some unknown reason none of them seem to get to the basic questions, which I have presented above. Do you want to take a shot at answering my questions or will you brush it off as "it doesn't matter"?
Dear Sec. Clinton,
The Washington Times quotes the following from your new book: "There will never be perfect clarity or full agreement on everything that happened regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya — but that does not mean a lack of effort on getting to the truth."
I respectfully suggest that you are missing the point. This is not a game of truth or consequences. We the public just want to know what happened and why.
Ambassador Stevens was killed when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by Islamic militants. I believe this is factual to an episode that happened approximately 2 years ago. In addition it is also said that several other Americans were killed in that same attack. I've not heard anything which would dispute these killings.
It is also said that these killings occurred because the defenders of the Consulate were denied military assistance. That may be conjectural, but the fact that the killings occurred and there seemed to be no significant military assistance on-site makes this claim at least semi-factual. It Is this aspect of the episode on which we would like your elucidation. By that I mean, an explanation of why you apparently did not attempt to give the consulate military assistance to avoid the killings or while the attack was in progress. Since you have never commented that you did call for military assistance, we can only presume up to now that the claim of your not attempting to give any is also factual.
As Secretary of State, it is my understanding that you have the responsibility to sustain the health and welfare of Americans in US Embassies and Consulates around the world. I also believe that is indisputable, but will recognize any statement you may have to the contrary. In the absence of such statement, we will presume that you are agreed that such was your responsibility.
Perhaps you would say that you did not have control of military assets such as to apply the assistance that was apparently needed either prior to or during the terrorist attack. But, I have not heard you make any comment on that point. If we assume that you did not have direct control of military facilities to supply the needed help to the Benghazi consulate, you were the Secretary of State and presumably in close contact with Pres. Obama. The simple question is, "Did you ask Pres. Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, to supply military assistance?" If not, why not?
There have already been too many congressional hearings on the subject, but for some unknown reason none of them seem to get to the basic questions, which I have presented above. Do you want to take a shot at answering my questions or will you brush it off as "it doesn't matter"?
Pakistani Terrorist Groups
The Washington Times says, "The Haqqani Network, the terrorist group that the U.S. command in Afghanistan says is its most formidable enemy — worse than the Taliban or al Qaeda — has operated for a dozen years across the border in Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal area with little to fear other than sporadic drone strikes.
We have been giving the Pakistani government $1 billion per year on average for many years.
We should now be saying to the Pakistanis, "if you want to continue receiving your billion dollars per year, we insist that you get the terrorist groups in your country under control, meaning eliminate any terrorist operations originating in your country, which jeopardize our operations anywhere in the world. However you do it is okay with us. You can put them all in jail, or kill them all, but we need proof that you have them under control, if you want your billion dollars per year. In the absence of any progress on your control of terrorist organizations in your country, we will be cutting the billion dollar contribution substantially, depending upon how much cooperation we see from you."
We have been giving the Pakistani government $1 billion per year on average for many years.
We should now be saying to the Pakistanis, "if you want to continue receiving your billion dollars per year, we insist that you get the terrorist groups in your country under control, meaning eliminate any terrorist operations originating in your country, which jeopardize our operations anywhere in the world. However you do it is okay with us. You can put them all in jail, or kill them all, but we need proof that you have them under control, if you want your billion dollars per year. In the absence of any progress on your control of terrorist organizations in your country, we will be cutting the billion dollar contribution substantially, depending upon how much cooperation we see from you."
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Hooray for Demise of Energy Bill
Jeff Johnson reports in the May 19 issue of Chemical & Engineering News that Senate Bill 2262 on energy efficiency did not advance to the full Senate and likely will die this year. A similar bill suffered the same fate last year.
That's good news! Maybe for the wrong reasons, but the Senate Committee did something right for once. We do not need a law to impose energy efficiency on us. The price of energy is sufficient control, such that there is an automatic control of quantity usage in an individual's effort to reduce household expenditures.
We need more freedom of market choice; not less. How many of you are happy with the fact that it is difficult or impossible in some cases to buy incandescent bulbs, which give instantaneous light of a wavelength you like, rather than being stuck with some slow reacting, poor wavelength LED by law? Let the private companies continue to improve their products to the point where they sell themself to the public. We don't need a law telling us what we must buy.
That's good news! Maybe for the wrong reasons, but the Senate Committee did something right for once. We do not need a law to impose energy efficiency on us. The price of energy is sufficient control, such that there is an automatic control of quantity usage in an individual's effort to reduce household expenditures.
We need more freedom of market choice; not less. How many of you are happy with the fact that it is difficult or impossible in some cases to buy incandescent bulbs, which give instantaneous light of a wavelength you like, rather than being stuck with some slow reacting, poor wavelength LED by law? Let the private companies continue to improve their products to the point where they sell themself to the public. We don't need a law telling us what we must buy.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Taliban Prisoner Sgt. Berdahl
The television news is full of the story of Sgt. Bergdahl being recovered from the Taliban in exchange for the release of five Taliban prisoners at Guantánamo. Bergdahl had been in captivity for five years. There is some question as to how he happened to be captured by the Taliban. Some reports say that he sneaked under the fence and was actually a deserter from his unit.
The Washington Times says the Pentagon on several occasions had ground-level intelligence on where Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was being held captive at various times — down to how many gunmen were guarding him — but special operations commanders repeatedly shelved rescue missions because they didn’t want to risk casualties for a man they believed to be a “deserter.” Commanders on the ground debated several times a rescue mission, but each time decided against such mission because the prospect of losing highly trained troops was too high a price to pay for rescuing a soldier who walked away from his unit before being captured by the enemy.
That's ridiculous! It's not the Army that I used to know 70 years ago.
The main consideration is that if the Taliban position where Sgt. Berdahl was being held was a major establishment, it should have been attacked by American forces, whether Sgt. Bergdahl was there or not. Apparently, the military has gotten the idea that following World War II every war engaged in should be of limited prosecution. That is to give the impression that there is a war on but actually operate with one hand tied behind the back. This was true in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. The only exception seems to be the Desert Storm operation wherein American forces ousted Iraqi from Kuwait.
The other aspect is that while it appears that Bergdahl may have been a deserter, that is only hearsay. He is a soldier in the US Army and has every right to be retrieved from the enemy through attack procedures, if necessary. Following his recovery, he should then have been submitted to a court-martial to determine the legitimacy of the deserter charge. If found guilty, he should then have been shot, which I believe has been the standard procedure for deserters.
In other words, I claim the military did it all wrong. If they had done it right, five Taliban leaders would still be sitting in Guantánamo. We may have lost some men in a recovery operation, but likely would have wiped out a Taliban command post. We should also remember the reports that there was a mission looking for Berhdahl in which several squad members were killed. While we regret the death of those people, that is the function and risks taken by soldiers and an indication they were at least initially on the right track, until someone higher up decided to call off for rescue efforts. Those higher-ups should be chastised for their timid attitudes and demoted. We know that Pres. Obama is a peace monger, but unless he had given specific orders to not retrieve Sgt. Berdahl, it was the Army's responsibility to do it as expeditiously as possible.
The Washington Times says the Pentagon on several occasions had ground-level intelligence on where Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was being held captive at various times — down to how many gunmen were guarding him — but special operations commanders repeatedly shelved rescue missions because they didn’t want to risk casualties for a man they believed to be a “deserter.” Commanders on the ground debated several times a rescue mission, but each time decided against such mission because the prospect of losing highly trained troops was too high a price to pay for rescuing a soldier who walked away from his unit before being captured by the enemy.
That's ridiculous! It's not the Army that I used to know 70 years ago.
The main consideration is that if the Taliban position where Sgt. Berdahl was being held was a major establishment, it should have been attacked by American forces, whether Sgt. Bergdahl was there or not. Apparently, the military has gotten the idea that following World War II every war engaged in should be of limited prosecution. That is to give the impression that there is a war on but actually operate with one hand tied behind the back. This was true in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. The only exception seems to be the Desert Storm operation wherein American forces ousted Iraqi from Kuwait.
The other aspect is that while it appears that Bergdahl may have been a deserter, that is only hearsay. He is a soldier in the US Army and has every right to be retrieved from the enemy through attack procedures, if necessary. Following his recovery, he should then have been submitted to a court-martial to determine the legitimacy of the deserter charge. If found guilty, he should then have been shot, which I believe has been the standard procedure for deserters.
In other words, I claim the military did it all wrong. If they had done it right, five Taliban leaders would still be sitting in Guantánamo. We may have lost some men in a recovery operation, but likely would have wiped out a Taliban command post. We should also remember the reports that there was a mission looking for Berhdahl in which several squad members were killed. While we regret the death of those people, that is the function and risks taken by soldiers and an indication they were at least initially on the right track, until someone higher up decided to call off for rescue efforts. Those higher-ups should be chastised for their timid attitudes and demoted. We know that Pres. Obama is a peace monger, but unless he had given specific orders to not retrieve Sgt. Berdahl, it was the Army's responsibility to do it as expeditiously as possible.
Pres. Obama's Position on Bergdahl
The Washington Times quoted Pres. Obama as saying today that he had an obligation to secure the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, regardless of the circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bergdahl’s capture by the Taliban five years ago and despite claims he’s a “deserter” who walked away from his unit.
I agree with Pres. Obama that we had an obligation to recover Sgt. Bergdahl, whether or not he was a claimed deserter.
However, the President was wrong in the process of recovery. Instead of a prisoner exchange, the Army should have attacked the position where Bergdahl was being held, wiping out that Taliban position, and recovering Sgt. Bergdahl for a subsequent court-martial.
I agree with Pres. Obama that we had an obligation to recover Sgt. Bergdahl, whether or not he was a claimed deserter.
However, the President was wrong in the process of recovery. Instead of a prisoner exchange, the Army should have attacked the position where Bergdahl was being held, wiping out that Taliban position, and recovering Sgt. Bergdahl for a subsequent court-martial.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
More Drone Bases Needed in Afghanistan
The Washington Times says, President Obama’s plan to cut the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan to 5,000 troops will end an era of American drone superiority over the region.
I had previously said we should withdraw completely from Afghanistan and cover the threat of training camps and terrorist administration bases with surveillance and attack drones.
I was wrong.
Afghanistan is 770 miles long and 350 miles wide. Obama has considered keeping troops at Bagram Airfield, which is 20 miles north of Kabul. From that location, it is about 580 miles to the farthest eastern border with Iran.
We are now using General Atomics’ Grey Eagle attack drones in Afghanistan. They carriy four Hellfire missiles, but have an operating range of only 230 miles, which is considerably short of the 580 miles from Bagram to the farthest eastern border. .
A knowledgable person confirmed that Mr. Obama’s decision to confine remaining U.S. forces to Kabul and Bagram Air Fieldby the end of 2015 will eliminate a strategic patchwork of forward operating bases used for drone missions.
In order to retain control of terrorist activities in Afghanistan by means of drones, the program will obviously have to be changed to include maintaining the "strategic patchwork of forward operating bases", until such time as technology can catch up to be able to cover the whole country, as well as cross-border missions into Pakistan, from limited bases in Kabul and Bagram.
I had previously said we should withdraw completely from Afghanistan and cover the threat of training camps and terrorist administration bases with surveillance and attack drones.
I was wrong.
Afghanistan is 770 miles long and 350 miles wide. Obama has considered keeping troops at Bagram Airfield, which is 20 miles north of Kabul. From that location, it is about 580 miles to the farthest eastern border with Iran.
We are now using General Atomics’ Grey Eagle attack drones in Afghanistan. They carriy four Hellfire missiles, but have an operating range of only 230 miles, which is considerably short of the 580 miles from Bagram to the farthest eastern border. .
A knowledgable person confirmed that Mr. Obama’s decision to confine remaining U.S. forces to Kabul and Bagram Air Fieldby the end of 2015 will eliminate a strategic patchwork of forward operating bases used for drone missions.
In order to retain control of terrorist activities in Afghanistan by means of drones, the program will obviously have to be changed to include maintaining the "strategic patchwork of forward operating bases", until such time as technology can catch up to be able to cover the whole country, as well as cross-border missions into Pakistan, from limited bases in Kabul and Bagram.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
