Sen.Imhofe on Global Warninghim

him

Amnesty

According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama says granting legal status to 5 million illegal immigrants is not amnesty. Amnesty is having 5 million illegal immigrants.
What kind of convoluted thinking is that? This man is either a genius in his capability of innovation or insane.
My son says if you call a sheep's tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? The answer is 4. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

Chicken Grant Jury?

The Washington Times says the Ferguson grand jury dispersed without taking a position on whether or not to indict police officer Darrell Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown.
It may be that there was truly enough difference of opinion within the members of the grand jury as to be unable to make a decision, but I suspect otherwise.
In all likelihood, the grand jury members decided not to take a position because in so doing it would incite public wrath. If this is so, we are again faced with the problem of what is happening to our country of laws and the enforcement thereof. If we as a people, grand jury or general public, are unwilling to face some negative aspects of law enforcement, we can be sure that this is the end of our country.

Quid Pro Quo or Something for Something

Organizing for Action (OFA) is said to be a community organizing organization. In fact, it was a fund-raising operation for the reelection of Pres. Obama. The present webpage for OFA is https://www.barackobama.com/about-ofa/ . Note the name Barack Obama included in the address.
Since Barack Obama is no longer eligible for reelection as president, the organization has been modified to give general support to the reelection of Democrats.
The Washington Times reports that following Pres. Obama's recent executive order giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, most of whom will vote Democrat, he sent out an email to a number of Democratic supporters referring them to the OFA website. The website contains a "donate" button asking for donations of from $50-$1000.
In sending emails, Pres. Obama is saying to the recipients that he took the first step of qualifying millions of illegal Americans to vote Democrat and now Democrat supporters must come up with their end of the bargain by donating money for reelection of Democrat officeholders.

Generic Pharmaceutical Prices

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont claims to be an independent, but by his actions has shown to be a Democrat/Socialist. He is now in a tizzy concerning generic pharmaceuticals. He claims that recent price hikes are unconscionable. That statement alone causes one to believe that he is probably more socialist than anything.
I have no way of knowing whether recent price increases for generic pharmaceuticals are reasonable based upon costs of and marketing, but I do know we have antitrust laws. If various members of companies involved in the production and sales of generic drugs, have been fixing prices, it is up to antitrust regulators to determine that fact and follow up with prosecutions, which previously held jail sentences.
Bernie Sanders should stop ranting and raving on the subject. If he wants to do something positive to be sure that the public is receiving a fair shake, he needs to go to the Justice Department and ask them to investigate generic drug pricing.

Amnesty

By executive order, Pres. Obama has just given amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Entry into the United States by avoiding immigration regulations is a misdemeanor.
Pres. Obama justifies his amnesty by saying that these people will now pay taxes. Stuart Varney later came on TV and disputed whether there would be any significant tax gain from the program. Both of them are dodging the real issue.
We have been a country of laws, which has made us different from many countries of the world. Being a country of laws means that there are laws against certain societal actions; for example bank robbery, child molestation, illegal immigration, etc. To be a country of laws, enforcement of the laws is also necessary. For this, we have a federal Justice Department and state and local police. These people have the responsibility of bringing lawbreakers to various judges for application of penalties, such as imprisonment or fine.
When amnesty is granted to millions of lawbreakers, we are no longer a country of laws. If we try to justify the amnesty by the fact that the lawbreakers will now pay taxes, are we not saying that if you break a law in the US you can buy your way out of the penalty?

Putin on Muslim Invasions

    The following was sent to me by a political associate and has my blessing:
   
    "This is one time our elected leaders and every citizen of the USA should pay attention to the advice of Vladimir Putin. On August 4, 2012, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president addressed the Duma (Russian Parliament) and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:
    It is a sad day when a communist leader makes more sense than our leaders here in the US, but here it is:
      "In Russia, live like Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, it should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslim's then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law.     Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how wild they yell' discrimination'. We will not tolerate disrespect the bar Russian culture. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland, and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russians are taking over those countries and they will not take over Russia. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of sharia law and Muslims.
    "When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Russian national interest first, observing that the Muslim minorities are not Russians."

   "The members of the Dumas gave Putin a five-minute standing ovation". 

Ineptitude of the Department of Energy

According to the Washington Times, the Government Accountability Office, which is an investigatory arm of Congress, reports that the U.S. Energy Department is failing in its job to properly review nuclear exports.
Nuclear exports are of two types. These are products and processes which are used for peaceful purposes, such as diagnostic medical testing, and those products and processes which can aid in the development of a nuclear weapon.
We are particularly concerned with the latter, because a proliferation of nuclear weapons within the world increases the likelihood of nuclear weapon use wherein a single blast could kill hundreds of thousands of people.
There is no room for sloppiness in the government or anywhere else in the program to contain nuclear proliferation. At least two years ago, I advocated elimination of the Department of Energy (DOE), because of its ineptitude in handling not only conventional energy, such as oil, but also nuclear controls.
As Iran is on the doorstep of becoming another nuclear weapon power, we have additional proof that the DOE is completely incompetent in controlling nonproliferation weapon capability.
I call again on Congress to eliminate the DOE and place the responsibility for nuclear energy control with the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense.

UN Arms Treaty

Open email to US Senators:

Dear US Senators,
The U.N. Arms Trade treaty is set to take effect on Christmas Eve. 
Under the terms of the treaty, participating nations are required to set up export and import controls for combat vehicles, aircraft and small arms. The text of the treaty also requires that participating member states establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions.
The treaty has been signed by 122 states and has been ratified by 54. It will become effective on 24 December 2014, because it has been ratified or acceded to by the requisite 50 states.
The U.S. delegation to the United Nations supports the treaty and the current White House is publicly touting support for the treaty.
The US is not a ratified member of the treaty. This requires a two thirds approval by the Senate.
I call on all Senate members to not even come close to ratification and assumption of a US obligation to the terms of this treaty. It is an instrument of the UN to control world order, and we have already seen the ineptitude of that organization in much less important matters.
The United States will control world order, not the UN. As we continue to improve our administration and particularly in the 2016 election, we will be better able to do so. Meanwhile, we should not establish any hindrance to that major objective and responsibility.

Racial Organizations

The November 10 issue of Chemical and Engineering News reports on a recent meeting of an NOBCChE members in New Orleans. That acronym stands for National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists & Chemical Engineers.
I'm certainly not against advancement of black chemists and chemical engineers. In fact, I have an emotional attachment to the subject, since my graduate school laboratory partner in 1943 was a black chemist. Lincoln Diuguid has been my friend for 71 years.
However, I continue to be concerned with the continuing efforts of minority groups to separate themselves from American culture. One of the precepts for the founding of the United States of America was to be a melting pot for various nationalities and cultures of the world. The presumption was that immigrants of these various cultures and nationalities would assimilate to a general society. This has been effective. My grandfather was a Hungarian unable to speak English. My father grew up on the East side of New York, subsequently became a banker, and I have worked many years as a PhD chemist. My grandfather was unable to assimilate to American culture and language, but his progeny were able to do so. It is inconceivable to me that there would have been any advantage to either the United States of America or to my family if we had retained our Hungarian language and culture and associated only with Hungarians of similar background.
On that basis I have to be adamantly opposed to all efforts of minorities to segregate themselves from national programs, where such programs exist without discrimination.
One of the objectives of the American Chemical Society is to promote the professional advancement of its members. This includes all races of black, white, green and red, as well as Americans of at least 140 or so original nationalities. I see no reason why black or Hungarian chemists would have to go off on their own to establish individual segments of promotion, which would only have the effect of weakening the development of the whole.
If black chemists and engineers need to associate with each other for recreational purposes, that seems justifiable, but for professional basic needs, it can only do damage to the coherence of our country. Would Blacks consider reestablishing programs where they could eat only in black restaurants and use black restrooms, because they would be excluded from using white facilities?

Keystone Pipeline

There is a lot of oil in Western Canada, but Canadians don't have the local infrastructure nor facilities to refine it. They want to sell it, and the two obvious best customers are China and the United States. While the oil is concentrated in Western Canada, it is not on the coast. To be shipped by sea, it would have to be transported overland to terminals on the Pacific coast. From there, it could be shipped in tankers to China or to the US. If it is shipped to the US, it would have to go around the southern tip of South America to come up into the US Gulf Coast, where the US complex of refineries and petrochemical plants are located. The Suez Canal can't handle big tankers. Alternative shipment to the US Gulf Coast could be done by pipeline, which is the basis for all of the hubbub.
Environmentalists oppose bringing Canadian crude into the US for refining into motor fuels and ancillary products, because it would increase the burning of such fossil fuels, with the attendant liberation of carbon dioxide. Let's remember two things about carbon dioxide; one political and one fact. The environmental movement in the United States has been taken over by communist/ socialist sympathizers. Their agenda is to reduce the economic importance of the US; in effect, a redistribution of wealth. They also have considerable financial resources and support Democrats in reelection. President Obama and Democrats owe much to environmentalists for their  reelection. As an instrument to foster their objective of wealth distribution, environmentalists have also developed a myth, which claims that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change. There is absolutely no scientific data or reasonable theory to justify this position, but because of its fear aspects, it has tended to receive significant support from the general public, which then radiates into the people's political representatives, such as federal Representatives and Senators. In essence, Democrats have two reasons to oppose increased usage of fossil fuels, including the Keystone pipeline which would bring Canadian crude to the US Gulf Coast. These are the desire for continued financial support of environmentalists in reelections, and the fact that many of them actually believe the carbon dioxide myth.
An executive order signed in 1968 gave the U.S. State Department the authority to approve or deny cross-border facilities, including oil pipelines and electricity transmission lines. Since the Secretary of State works for Pres. Obama, approval or disapproval of the Keystone pipeline lies with him. However, constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, allows it the right to overturn this executive order.
House Republicans have for several years been in favor of approving the Keystone pipeline, but Harry Reid's Democratic Senate has not allowed a floor vote. More recently, and with the old Democratic majority Senate and Harry Reid still in session, Democrat Sen. Landrieu of Louisiana broke party lines and asked for a floor vote on the pipeline. Senate Democrats immediately began a filibuster to deny bringing the issue to vote. Sen. Landrieu had all 45 Republicans and 14 Democrats on her side to break the Democratic filibuster, but it was insufficient to the required 60 votes. The Senate did not take a floor vote on the pipeline. The question then arises as to whether a favorable Senate vote can be developed in January with the new Senate in which Republicans will be a majority. It is generally conceded that Pres. Obama would veto any congressional bill to approve the pipeline and that despite the increased Republican representation in the Congress, there will not be enough votes to override his veto.
The question then arises as to whether the Keystone pipeline will ever become operable. It appears unlikely that it will gain approval in the near future and justify continued capital expenditure by the owners. The next key date for a possible turnaround will be the 2016 elections. A new Democratic president will likely continue the stalemate, while a new Republican president will probably sign a congressional bill allowing operation of the pipeline. Will the Canadians wait another two years for a conjectural decision on the pipeline, commence building infrastructure and refineries for their own processing, or build the port facilities for shipments to China?

EPA's Control of Toxic Substances

As an add-on to my recent essay on revision of the Toxic Chemicals law, Chemical and Engineering News has come up with additional information on the EPA in its November 3 issue.
The EPA has added 23 chemicals to its list of chemicals for further scrutiny and potential control. It also removed 16 chemicals from the list, including 13 that the agency claims are no longer sold in the US. The changes have been made to reflect new data that industry submitted to the EPA concerning chemical releases and potential exposures. This marks the first time the agency has updated its list of chemicals since 2012. The list now contains 90 substances or groups of compounds that may cause reproductive, developmental or neurotoxic effects, are carcinogenic, or are in children's products.
The American Chemistry Council has objected to the new inclusion of bisphenol A and the group of phthalate chemicals on the basis that these substances have already been reviewed by other regulatory programs. Notice that the EPA has not banned these substances from sale; merely that the substances are being assessed for possible regulation. These products are important sales to the chemical industry, but should be banned if the EPA investigation shows any possible significant danger to public health. Let's hope that the EPA analysis will not take forever. If the substances are already doing damage in the society, the sooner we can remove them from the environment the quicker we will be able to show public health improvement.
With respect to chemicals stricken from the list as no longer in commerce, this is based upon EPA's limit of investigation involving production of 25,000 pounds or more at each production site per year. This seems unreasonable to me, because it doesn't allow for variations in toxicity for individual chemicals. For example, take the case of Tabun, which was developed as a pesticide in Germany in the 1930s. One gram of Tabun applied to the skin of a human body is a lethal dose. If we go strictly by the EPA investigation rules, Tabun could be produced at 10 different sites in quantities of 22,000 pounds per year, for a total of 220,000 pounds (100,000 kg) per year, and escape the EPA's investigation limit. At the lethal dosage of 1 g per person, that quantity could kill 100 million people.
I call on Sen. Imhofe, the new Chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, to work with the EPA  in developing more practical procedures for determining what chemicals should be allowable for use and exposure to the public through commercial products.

outlaw Islam in the US That

According to the Washington Times, the Washington National Cathedral has hosted the first-ever Muslim prayer service. This has created a firestorm of objection on the Internet.
The Washington Times also reports that some Muslims of Somalia origin have taken over the state of Minnesota. Following up on the detail, it appears that some Somalia Muslim cabdrivers refuse to carry passengers who may be in noncompliance with Muslim law/culture. This includes passengers who be carrying or may have obviously used alcohol. Somalia Muslim cashiers at a major supermarket have refused to check out bacon. In one case, a large stash of Muslim approved hallucinogenic drug has been discovered.
I have tended to duck this issue of Muslims in the US until now, but these two above items have prompted me to investigate further. Our U.S. Constitution says that we should not discriminate against religion. The question seems to be whether Islam is a religion or a culture. If a religion, we should permit its use in the US. If a culture, and particularly if it is antagonistic or militaristic to the continued operations of the American government and American culture, it should be controlled by federal, state, and municipal law.
With respect to the Washington National Cathedral episode, I have checked the historical prayer services. The preponderance of prayer services at Washington National Cathedral have been Christian-based, meaning prayer services led by representatives of various Christian groups, such as Episcopalians, Methodists, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, etc.. The only prayer service leaders from other religious/cultural groups have been rabbis, representing the Jewish faith.
The obvious question to me was whether Islam religion/culture is similar enough in total content compared to Hebrew religion/culture, to allow representation at the Washington National Cathedral.
Through Internet research, it appears that Islam is more of a culture  than that of an actual religion. Islam is a complete way of life. Many scholars agree that Islam impacts every part of life, from eating and sleeping to working and playing. It is not only a personal religion, but also a social one. However, we can also say the same thing about the Hebrew/Jewish culture.
The question then arises as to whether there is a significant difference between Islam culture and Hebrew culture, as to justify the inclusion of one culture's representative in Washington Cathedral prayer service and not the other.
For such consideration, we need to consider the content of the culture, as well as the degree of following. I will get to the content of the cultures shortly, but first touch on the degree of following, which is generally indicated by use of the word Orthodox. An Orthodox follower is a strict adherant to cultural rules. We have Orthodox following in various branches of religion/culture. In Christianity, we even have it in the name of Greek Orthodox. In Hebrew religion/culture, there are Orthodox Jews. In Islam, the closest definition would be jihadists or terrorists.
Consider now the content of Islam culture versus Hebrew culture. Scholars generally agree that the Muslim culture is not based on the Quran but rather on the example set by Mohammed. He was kind to his fellow Muslims, and he was often cruel to non-Muslims, especially if they criticized Islam or hindered its expansion. He was perhaps a typical seventh-century warlord — ordering assassinations of his enemies, torturing people for information, owning slaves, and killing enemies in mass executions — but his example is preserved in writing, and so is the Quranic encouragement to all devout, present-day Muslims to follow his example. In a simplified term, the terrorist activities of Muslims are Orthodox and completely consistent with Mohammed's teaching of the culture. As we look at the Orthodox practice of Hebrew culture, we see no similar militant aspects.
It is also said that the teachings in Islamic mosques and training centers in the US and subsequent external promotion and application to US culture is training in political action, advocating a foreign, fascist political system, preaching hatred toward other religions, and sending funds to foreign movements to support anti-American activities. Such practice would completely disqualify the organizations from religious tax exemption, on the basis that it is a political movement. An even more appropriate term might be that they should be considered organizations of sedititious political action.
The bottom line on all of this is that an unknown percentage of Muslims are Orthodox, with serious intention of seditious acts against the continued existence of present US culture and government law and order, with respect to the Constitution. Islam is definitely not a religion and should not be considered as qualified for protection of religious liberty under the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the continued existence of the United States as in entity of economic power and example of freedom for the world lies in the need to control Islam in the United States.
I call on the US Congress to present a law which would prohibit the immigration of Muslims to the US. For all Muslims entering the US illegally and captured by border control operations, they should be segmented into perceived Orthodox and Unorthodox groups. The Orthodox group should be jailed and the Unorthodox groups immediately deported to their home countries. For those Muslims already here, every impediment should be used by business people to disallow construction of Muslim mosques and training centers, without any interference by the Obama administration, who has previously shown a propensity to actually promote Islam within the US. Wherever possible, purveyors of illegal hallucinogenic drugs used by Muslims, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of US law. In short, we need to outlaw Islam in the US.

Veterans Administration Leadership

On December 8, 2008, Pres. Obama appointed retired U.S. Army General, Eric Shinseki, as Veterans Affairs Seretary. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) previously had a bad reputation in serving the needs of American veterans. Under Shinseki's six year term, the situation degraded further to scandalous proportions. Pres. Obama properly responded by replacing General Shinseki with Robert A McDonald, who was previously Chief Executive Officer of Procter & Gamble.
Some thought that the Veterans Affairs Secretary should be a medical doctor, because much of the VA business involves medical problems of veterans. However, it was clear to me that the VA difficulties were primarily administrative, from a leadership point of view, and the mishandling of medical problems was only ancillary.
The Washington Times has now come up with a headline that according to Robert McDonald: Firings have begun at Veterans Affairs. Secretary McDonald said that firing processes have begun for employees flagged for disciplinary action in the wake of recent issues with the department that have seen veterans shuttled to secret waiting lists, among other things. A newly-announced reorganization of the department, intended to boost customer service for veterans, is the biggest in history, he said. “We can’t change this department unless we change the culture,” Mr. McDonald said on CNN’s “New Day.” “Primary to changing the culture is holding people accountable when they violate our values…if somebody has violated our value of integrity, we’re going to go after and seek their dismissal [or] separation.”
He went on to say that there is a list of about 40 names they report to Congress each week and another list of more than 5,000 names of people they’re seeking disciplinary action against, or who have been disciplined over the last year. A reporter asked whether he had fired any of those those approximately 40 people. “Of course we have,” said McDonald. He said that the law, presumably from Congress, requires that candidates for firing be first put on Administrative Leave, during which time they are receiving full pay without work. A judge then decides what disciplinary procedures should be followed for each case.
I am pleased with the appointment of Robert McDonald, where his previous as CEO of Procter & Gamble allowed him the hiring and firing of various people. However, I now am questioning whether he is being hamstrung by an outdated law established by Congress. It appears that Congress may have established a law making it difficult to fire employees in order to establish a stability of organization. However, that process also protects from firing various persons who are inept in their jobs.
It now behooves Congress to re-examine any such restrictive firing laws in order to put them on the same basis as those once used in private industry and commerce. This is not to say that any governmental change and firing procedures should be exactly equivalent to those now being used in industry and commerce, because through the years the process has been eroded to the point where government has intruded into the private firing process making it almost equally difficult for private and corporate CEOs to properly do their jobs.