The Washington Times says Texas Representative Michael McCaul has proposed transferring blimps used for spying in Afghanistan to the southern US border to control illegal border crossings. Representative McCaul is Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, a pretty responsible job.
However, this is a silly proposal and even a basis for consideration of whether Representative McCaul should continue to hold his position as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
I say it's a silly proposal because Representative McCaul obviously does not have his eye on the bigger picture. He could propose 100 different methods for controlling illegal border crossings, but as long as the Obama Administration wants illegal border crossings and has control of federal homeland security and border control agents, Representative McCaul is whistling in the dark. He doesn't seem to realize that.
We need a congressional leader who will fight the federal government, bringing to the attention of the voting public that the Obama Administration's practice of ignoring immigration laws is detrimental to the country, even to the extent that it could be grounds for Pres. Obama's impeachment.
Republicans may consider a fight for border control as dangerous to obtaining the Latino vote. However, most Latino citizens of the US are for strong law enforcement, which is one of the reasons they came here in the first place. If there is any doubt about this, talk with Marco Rubio.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Hillary Clinton and Job Creation
The Washington Times quotes Hillary Clinton as saying, "Not to listen to any anybody who tells you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” She didn't say who does create jobs but the implication is that it is government.
I don't deny that government creates jobs. I have a relative that works for the federal government. Since he draws a paycheck, he has a job and presumably that job have been created by the people who hired him, namely government. In fact, many of us claim that government has created too many jobs and should be strongly cut back.
When I was 14 years old, I got a job work working with my Uncle Bill in the afternoons after the school. Uncle Bill was in the window shade business. Since he paid me, I thought I had a job. He probably thought so too, since my wages were a cost to his business. Since he was the one who hired me, I think we can safely say he created the job. If he did not hire me or anybody else, no job would have been created.
When I was in college, my father got me a job working in a bank at Franklin Square during the summers, when I was not in college. The bank paid me, so in normal terms one could consider that was a job. If the bank had not hired me, no job would have been created. I suppose one could go all the way back to the Constitution, which established that the federal government should develop a monetary system and that subsequently led to all banking, but such thinking is really far-fetched with respect to normal considerations of job creation and payrolls. Such a thought is unworthy of even such a knucklehead as Hillary Clinton.
During World War II I was drafted into the Army. In this case, I agree completely that the government created a job for which it paid me $14 a month. Hillary is on target with this one. Government forced me to work for it.
After the war and graduate school, I got a job with the Rohm & Haas company, a chemical manufacturer. They paid me, so I considered it was a job and the company probably thought so too. The company had the option of not hiring me or anyone else, in which case no job have been created. Therefore, I considered, that the Rohm & Haas company created a job for me. Government did not put the Rohm & Haas company in the chemical business, so I believe I can safely say that government was not involved, other than to take taxes on profits the company made.
All in all, would you like Hillary Clinton to be your next president, with the apparently obtuse thinking that she has?
I don't deny that government creates jobs. I have a relative that works for the federal government. Since he draws a paycheck, he has a job and presumably that job have been created by the people who hired him, namely government. In fact, many of us claim that government has created too many jobs and should be strongly cut back.
When I was 14 years old, I got a job work working with my Uncle Bill in the afternoons after the school. Uncle Bill was in the window shade business. Since he paid me, I thought I had a job. He probably thought so too, since my wages were a cost to his business. Since he was the one who hired me, I think we can safely say he created the job. If he did not hire me or anybody else, no job would have been created.
When I was in college, my father got me a job working in a bank at Franklin Square during the summers, when I was not in college. The bank paid me, so in normal terms one could consider that was a job. If the bank had not hired me, no job would have been created. I suppose one could go all the way back to the Constitution, which established that the federal government should develop a monetary system and that subsequently led to all banking, but such thinking is really far-fetched with respect to normal considerations of job creation and payrolls. Such a thought is unworthy of even such a knucklehead as Hillary Clinton.
During World War II I was drafted into the Army. In this case, I agree completely that the government created a job for which it paid me $14 a month. Hillary is on target with this one. Government forced me to work for it.
After the war and graduate school, I got a job with the Rohm & Haas company, a chemical manufacturer. They paid me, so I considered it was a job and the company probably thought so too. The company had the option of not hiring me or anyone else, in which case no job have been created. Therefore, I considered, that the Rohm & Haas company created a job for me. Government did not put the Rohm & Haas company in the chemical business, so I believe I can safely say that government was not involved, other than to take taxes on profits the company made.
All in all, would you like Hillary Clinton to be your next president, with the apparently obtuse thinking that she has?
Friday, October 17, 2014
CDC Research on Ebola^
This is short, because it does not need to be long. The reference is from the Washington Times.
The CDC knows little about the Ebola virus. For example, CDC does not know how the virus is transmitted from person to person. It does not know what drugs will kill it in an infected person. It does not know the length of time the virus remains virile for transmission to person-to-person. I could go on and on.
The CDC admits to this lack of knowledge and says it was unable to do the necessary research because of budget cuts by Congress in CDC funding. The Washington Times says that during the same time period of budget cuts, millions of dollars were paid in bonuses to CDC employees. In effect, employees were paid bonuses to do nothing on improving CDC's knowledge of the Ebola virus. Need I say more?
The CDC knows little about the Ebola virus. For example, CDC does not know how the virus is transmitted from person to person. It does not know what drugs will kill it in an infected person. It does not know the length of time the virus remains virile for transmission to person-to-person. I could go on and on.
The CDC admits to this lack of knowledge and says it was unable to do the necessary research because of budget cuts by Congress in CDC funding. The Washington Times says that during the same time period of budget cuts, millions of dollars were paid in bonuses to CDC employees. In effect, employees were paid bonuses to do nothing on improving CDC's knowledge of the Ebola virus. Need I say more?
Friday, October 10, 2014
US Traitors
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today asked for unanimous consent on his bill, the Expatriate Terrorist Act of 2014, that would strip Americans who join ISIS of their citizenship.
ISIS is an organization of murderous adherents to a violent medieval ideology. The targets for murder are average American citizens.
A traitor is a person who betrays his country. Some synonyms are: defector, deserter, and informer. Any US citizen who has joined ISIS has done so with the intention of doing harm to the United States and is therefore a traitor. It was apparently Sen. Cruz's intent to deprive such traitors not only of the benefits of US citizenship, but also of their ability to do US harm by parading as legitimate citizens.
Sen. Cruz's Bill got nowhere in the Senate because of opposition by the Democratic majority. It seems clear that the Senate Democrats have intention of protecting such traitors, which allows them to continue to operate against the interests of the United States. With the protection afforded to such traitors, it is also clear that Senate Democrats are complicit in attempts to destroy the United States through application of Muslim ideology specifically intended to murder US citizens.
There have been previous instances of individual prosecution of traitors, but nothing on the scale we see with the number of US citizens joining ISIS and the number of US Senate Democrats and others within the government and the population at large, with the same Muslim ideology.
I have separately written about the culture of violence in the black and poor communities, with no clear understanding of what to do about it because of the large number of lawbreakers. I see a similar situation with Democrats in the Senate, other public officials and the public at large, who are traitorous in their thoughts and actions. There are now so many of them, it is impossible to conceive of a program for correction. In this latter case, education does not seem to be an answer, because these people are in many cases already well-educated. Is it possible to change them through a mind control program somewhat similar to what was used in denaziflying the Germans after World War II?
ISIS is an organization of murderous adherents to a violent medieval ideology. The targets for murder are average American citizens.
A traitor is a person who betrays his country. Some synonyms are: defector, deserter, and informer. Any US citizen who has joined ISIS has done so with the intention of doing harm to the United States and is therefore a traitor. It was apparently Sen. Cruz's intent to deprive such traitors not only of the benefits of US citizenship, but also of their ability to do US harm by parading as legitimate citizens.
Sen. Cruz's Bill got nowhere in the Senate because of opposition by the Democratic majority. It seems clear that the Senate Democrats have intention of protecting such traitors, which allows them to continue to operate against the interests of the United States. With the protection afforded to such traitors, it is also clear that Senate Democrats are complicit in attempts to destroy the United States through application of Muslim ideology specifically intended to murder US citizens.
There have been previous instances of individual prosecution of traitors, but nothing on the scale we see with the number of US citizens joining ISIS and the number of US Senate Democrats and others within the government and the population at large, with the same Muslim ideology.
I have separately written about the culture of violence in the black and poor communities, with no clear understanding of what to do about it because of the large number of lawbreakers. I see a similar situation with Democrats in the Senate, other public officials and the public at large, who are traitorous in their thoughts and actions. There are now so many of them, it is impossible to conceive of a program for correction. In this latter case, education does not seem to be an answer, because these people are in many cases already well-educated. Is it possible to change them through a mind control program somewhat similar to what was used in denaziflying the Germans after World War II?
Violence in Poor and Black Communities
A headline from the Washington Times says, "Chicago concealed carry gun permit law 'disarms' poor, blacks". The implication is that the poor and blacks are being discriminated against. The discrimination is presumably based upon unavailability of firearms to them because of limitation of the concealed carry gun permit law. Nothing could be farther from the truth, when you look at the total picture.
The article goes on to say that in ZIP code area 60624 there have been more homicides, robberies, assaults, thefts and narcotics charges combined than any other ZIP code in Cook County, IL, when measured on a per capita basis. Its population is 98 percent black and averages a median income just above the poverty line. A separate video says that the violence is caused by the populace being deprived of concealed carry gun permits, which cost on average $650.
By comparison, ZIP code area 60464 boasts a negligible crime rate: Only one homicide has been committed in 10 years, according to the most recent state police data. Ninety-six percent of its residents are white, earning an average income of $121,000..
The intended message is that the poor and presumably some blacks are unable to protect themselves, because they can't afford to pay for a concealed carry gun permit. Hogwash!
In the ZIP Code area with the highest crime rate, the atrocities are mostly committed with guns. In other words, the residents are robbing and killing each other with firearms, which are readily available to them and having nothing to do with the concealed carry gun law. Since the residents have these guns illegally, and presumably are concealing them illegally, they start out by being lawbreakers. It is clear that they have no respect for the law and use violence as their way of life.
Contrarily in the high income ZIP Code area, the residents respect the law by legally obtaining firearms and permits for concealed carry. It is highly likely that without a concealed carry gun law, the criminal statistics would still be approximately the same. The low income people would continue to kill and rob each other at gunpoint, while the more wealthy would continue to have lower rates of crime, because they are believers and adhere to the concept of law and order
I'm not sure what we can do about reducing violence in the low income and black communities. Violence there seems to be. A cultural matter difficult to change. Police have been putting perpetrators in jail, but the jails are so full that this is not an obvious solution. The net result has been to reduce the jailing and let the violence continue to take its course.
Is a violent way of life too culturally ingrained to be changed? Education may be a possible solution, but the educational system has its own set of problems, with the likelihood of being unable to deal with this one.
The article goes on to say that in ZIP code area 60624 there have been more homicides, robberies, assaults, thefts and narcotics charges combined than any other ZIP code in Cook County, IL, when measured on a per capita basis. Its population is 98 percent black and averages a median income just above the poverty line. A separate video says that the violence is caused by the populace being deprived of concealed carry gun permits, which cost on average $650.
By comparison, ZIP code area 60464 boasts a negligible crime rate: Only one homicide has been committed in 10 years, according to the most recent state police data. Ninety-six percent of its residents are white, earning an average income of $121,000..
The intended message is that the poor and presumably some blacks are unable to protect themselves, because they can't afford to pay for a concealed carry gun permit. Hogwash!
In the ZIP Code area with the highest crime rate, the atrocities are mostly committed with guns. In other words, the residents are robbing and killing each other with firearms, which are readily available to them and having nothing to do with the concealed carry gun law. Since the residents have these guns illegally, and presumably are concealing them illegally, they start out by being lawbreakers. It is clear that they have no respect for the law and use violence as their way of life.
Contrarily in the high income ZIP Code area, the residents respect the law by legally obtaining firearms and permits for concealed carry. It is highly likely that without a concealed carry gun law, the criminal statistics would still be approximately the same. The low income people would continue to kill and rob each other at gunpoint, while the more wealthy would continue to have lower rates of crime, because they are believers and adhere to the concept of law and order
I'm not sure what we can do about reducing violence in the low income and black communities. Violence there seems to be. A cultural matter difficult to change. Police have been putting perpetrators in jail, but the jails are so full that this is not an obvious solution. The net result has been to reduce the jailing and let the violence continue to take its course.
Is a violent way of life too culturally ingrained to be changed? Education may be a possible solution, but the educational system has its own set of problems, with the likelihood of being unable to deal with this one.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Socialist
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont does not understand economics.
In a recent newsletter, he is bemoaning the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. He looks at this from a lifestyle perspective. Presumably, a billionaire has 1000 different chairs, while an average middle-class person has one chair. He neglects the fact that a billionaire has only one butt, which is the same as an average middle-class person, and he can sit in only one chair at a time. Or for another analogy, a billionaire presumably eats several thousand times more food than the average middle-class person. All of this is obviously ridiculous. Either, as I said earlier Bernie does not understand economics or he's appealing to the middle-class to outlaw billionaires; i.e. establish socialism.
The fact is that past a certain point of economic capability there is no lifestyle advantage in having a lot of money. I don't want a yacht. It's too much trouble. It might be nice to have somebody serve me iced tea, but I can get that in a restaurant. If I want to see water at the same time, I can find a waterfront restaurant or take a cruise. The cruise ship business is big. Lots of people go on cruises, and they are by no means all billionaires.
If one is a billionaire, he has responsibilities. He owns substantial portions of companies. He is obligated to run those companies in a constructive manner, so that they can meet the payroll to supply employees with the necessary funds for food, send their kids to college andhelp buy the family boat or RV. In spite of what Bernie Sanders may imply, being a billionaire is not all fun and games.
If it's not all fun and games, what is the advantage of being a billionaire? The answer is simple. It's power. Having lots of money allows a person to do big things, such as establish a national irrigation systems, improve flood control, or pour advertising money into swinging elections. Is there something wrong with swinging elections? Most people will say yes, but all will agree that billionaires are probably not stupid or they would not be billionaires. This would then lead to the question of whether standard elections should be left to the very limited and demonstrated knowledge or lack thereof of the average voter, or should election judgments be made on a more rational and knowledgeable basis.
Bernie Sanders can continue to tout socialism, which is obtainable by an average low information voter coming to the polls with the intention of how best he can fill his pockets with money. However, any such result of that voter action is nonsustainable. Socialism has been proven time and again to be a complete failure, with the unfortunate pain of having it fail over a period of time. It's in the same category as everybody is nice and there really are no bad people. That's a dream state of unreality. We have to look at the world as it is. Some billionaires may do wrong with the power, but most do not. I say hooray for billionaires as a class. We need more of them, with their ability to continue building this great country.
In a recent newsletter, he is bemoaning the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. He looks at this from a lifestyle perspective. Presumably, a billionaire has 1000 different chairs, while an average middle-class person has one chair. He neglects the fact that a billionaire has only one butt, which is the same as an average middle-class person, and he can sit in only one chair at a time. Or for another analogy, a billionaire presumably eats several thousand times more food than the average middle-class person. All of this is obviously ridiculous. Either, as I said earlier Bernie does not understand economics or he's appealing to the middle-class to outlaw billionaires; i.e. establish socialism.
The fact is that past a certain point of economic capability there is no lifestyle advantage in having a lot of money. I don't want a yacht. It's too much trouble. It might be nice to have somebody serve me iced tea, but I can get that in a restaurant. If I want to see water at the same time, I can find a waterfront restaurant or take a cruise. The cruise ship business is big. Lots of people go on cruises, and they are by no means all billionaires.
If one is a billionaire, he has responsibilities. He owns substantial portions of companies. He is obligated to run those companies in a constructive manner, so that they can meet the payroll to supply employees with the necessary funds for food, send their kids to college andhelp buy the family boat or RV. In spite of what Bernie Sanders may imply, being a billionaire is not all fun and games.
If it's not all fun and games, what is the advantage of being a billionaire? The answer is simple. It's power. Having lots of money allows a person to do big things, such as establish a national irrigation systems, improve flood control, or pour advertising money into swinging elections. Is there something wrong with swinging elections? Most people will say yes, but all will agree that billionaires are probably not stupid or they would not be billionaires. This would then lead to the question of whether standard elections should be left to the very limited and demonstrated knowledge or lack thereof of the average voter, or should election judgments be made on a more rational and knowledgeable basis.
Bernie Sanders can continue to tout socialism, which is obtainable by an average low information voter coming to the polls with the intention of how best he can fill his pockets with money. However, any such result of that voter action is nonsustainable. Socialism has been proven time and again to be a complete failure, with the unfortunate pain of having it fail over a period of time. It's in the same category as everybody is nice and there really are no bad people. That's a dream state of unreality. We have to look at the world as it is. Some billionaires may do wrong with the power, but most do not. I say hooray for billionaires as a class. We need more of them, with their ability to continue building this great country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
