Open Email to Representative Michael McCaul (TX):
Dear Representative McCaul,
I have read your latest newsletter.
Other than a swearing in ceremony, which is only windowdressing, you cover two points; border security and cyber security.
On border security, the people took the first step some time ago by electing you Representative, which means that you are supposed to take action. Border security is not a new issue. You have been talking about for some time. It is way past the action date. We want you to do something to follow up all your previous talk.
Cyber security is relatively new, especially with the Sony/North Korea case. We can excuse you for only engaging in talk on this relatively new issue. But, down the road, we will expect action from you.
In summary, we want the border closed to illegal immigration, and we want cyber attacks on US companies stopped. Do it.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Chemical Safety Board
Open email to Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Imhofe:
Dear Rep. Issa and Sen. Imhofe,
The September 29 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has an article on the Chemical Safety Board. The title of the article is "Unending Criticism; No let up likely in long-running series of investigations of the Chemical Safety Board"
I've been a member of the American Chemical Society for more than 50 years and during many of those years I have followed with interest the activities of the Chemical Safety Board. I have previously had the highest respect for their work, because it has in the past been professional. The Board has unpolitically investigated chemical accidents and made recommendations on improvements to save lives and reduce losses of equipment.
In reading the C&E News article, it becomes apparent that the professional activity of the CSB has fallen apart.
It is my understanding that the CSB was set up as a separate agency reporting only to Congress. Presumably a Congressional Committee of Congress oversees the Board, setting salaries and establishing responsibilities. This has apparently worked for a great number of years and the Board has been basically immune to the shenanigans of certain presidents, such as Obama, who has been juggling agency agendas, etc. contrary to the original intent and current desires of Congress. But, somehow the CSB has become politicized. This has been done by appointing the wrong people. When the CSB was operating professionally and efficiently, all of its investigating members knew their jobs, which was to investigate chemically related accidents, come to conclusions on what had gone wrong and made recommendations to both Congress and various other agencies within the federal government for improvements to alleviate repetition of such accidents. That took a professional view by each of the CSB members. Namely to do the job and not quibble about who was high on the pecking post within the organization or how any one or more members could obtain additional power by forcing other agencies of the federal government to do its bidding.
I strongly suggest you clean house on the CAB by removing opportunists, which may be the whole CSB, and appointing professional people who firstly have the right attitude and secondly have the experience and capability of doing an appropriate job.
Dear Rep. Issa and Sen. Imhofe,
The September 29 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has an article on the Chemical Safety Board. The title of the article is "Unending Criticism; No let up likely in long-running series of investigations of the Chemical Safety Board"
I've been a member of the American Chemical Society for more than 50 years and during many of those years I have followed with interest the activities of the Chemical Safety Board. I have previously had the highest respect for their work, because it has in the past been professional. The Board has unpolitically investigated chemical accidents and made recommendations on improvements to save lives and reduce losses of equipment.
In reading the C&E News article, it becomes apparent that the professional activity of the CSB has fallen apart.
It is my understanding that the CSB was set up as a separate agency reporting only to Congress. Presumably a Congressional Committee of Congress oversees the Board, setting salaries and establishing responsibilities. This has apparently worked for a great number of years and the Board has been basically immune to the shenanigans of certain presidents, such as Obama, who has been juggling agency agendas, etc. contrary to the original intent and current desires of Congress. But, somehow the CSB has become politicized. This has been done by appointing the wrong people. When the CSB was operating professionally and efficiently, all of its investigating members knew their jobs, which was to investigate chemically related accidents, come to conclusions on what had gone wrong and made recommendations to both Congress and various other agencies within the federal government for improvements to alleviate repetition of such accidents. That took a professional view by each of the CSB members. Namely to do the job and not quibble about who was high on the pecking post within the organization or how any one or more members could obtain additional power by forcing other agencies of the federal government to do its bidding.
I strongly suggest you clean house on the CAB by removing opportunists, which may be the whole CSB, and appointing professional people who firstly have the right attitude and secondly have the experience and capability of doing an appropriate job.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Obama Giveaway
When I was a boy, about 10 years old, the country were in the heart of the Great Depression. It had started with the stock market fall in in '29.
I heard from one of the other kids that the government was giving away free flour. I went to the location the kid told me about with my red wagon and obtained a 24 1/2 pound bag of flour, which I then took home. I proudly presented it to my mother and was surprised and disappointed at her reaction. She said, "we don't accept charity. Take it back".
Times have changed. It appears that the general public no longer believes in pride of personal accomplishment. Current attitude is more like grab it while you can. We are entitled to free stuff. The government is a sucker and won't even bother to check when we fleece it.
This is demonstrated by an announcement by the Washington Times, which recently said, "Obamacare hits 2.5 million enrollees; officials say that doesn’t count ‘extremely busy’ weekend".
Apparently, 2 1/2 million Americans have signed up for free stuff. Well, not exactly free stuff, but at a significant discount to what private insurance companies can offer. Why the low-cost? Simple. Taxpayers bear the brunt of the deficit. What the Obama care enrollee over-draws in benefits compared to what he pays in premiums is picked up by taxpayers. In other words, a redistribution of wealth. It's the same as persons adjusting their income so that when they file their tax returns the IRS pays them rather than charging a tax.
With this decline in moral values, what is the incentive to work? Work is hard. It has special requirements, such as you have to be there on time and do what the boss says. There will come a time when essentially everybody will cave into the acceptance of free stuff without responsibility. At that point, we will be on an accelerated slide to product and service insufficiency, followed by riots and general anarchy as we have seen recently with the Blacks.
I heard from one of the other kids that the government was giving away free flour. I went to the location the kid told me about with my red wagon and obtained a 24 1/2 pound bag of flour, which I then took home. I proudly presented it to my mother and was surprised and disappointed at her reaction. She said, "we don't accept charity. Take it back".
Times have changed. It appears that the general public no longer believes in pride of personal accomplishment. Current attitude is more like grab it while you can. We are entitled to free stuff. The government is a sucker and won't even bother to check when we fleece it.
This is demonstrated by an announcement by the Washington Times, which recently said, "Obamacare hits 2.5 million enrollees; officials say that doesn’t count ‘extremely busy’ weekend".
Apparently, 2 1/2 million Americans have signed up for free stuff. Well, not exactly free stuff, but at a significant discount to what private insurance companies can offer. Why the low-cost? Simple. Taxpayers bear the brunt of the deficit. What the Obama care enrollee over-draws in benefits compared to what he pays in premiums is picked up by taxpayers. In other words, a redistribution of wealth. It's the same as persons adjusting their income so that when they file their tax returns the IRS pays them rather than charging a tax.
With this decline in moral values, what is the incentive to work? Work is hard. It has special requirements, such as you have to be there on time and do what the boss says. There will come a time when essentially everybody will cave into the acceptance of free stuff without responsibility. At that point, we will be on an accelerated slide to product and service insufficiency, followed by riots and general anarchy as we have seen recently with the Blacks.
Russian Submarine Drones
The Washington Times reports, "Cold War comeback: U.S.-Russia locked in high-stakes submarine drone race".
Most people are familiar with the traditional drone, which is basically a small unmanned airplane controlled electronically usually from a ground source. The air drone has the capability of surveillance and attack with explosive weapons.
Presumably, a submarine drone, does the same thing underwater. It is likely controlled from a submarine or possibly other locations.
The key point is that there is likely no high-stakes submarine drone race with the Russians. While the Russians may have been working on a submarine drone, Pres. Reagan previously proved that Russia could be disabled in its militaristic goals by forcing it to overspend on military operations. In the present case, Russian overspending does not come from competitive spending with the US. Instead, we have OPEC to thank for basically driving Russia out of the oil business, which was the major source of their foreign-exchange. With insufficient foreign-exchange, a country cannot purchase items from other countries, such as machine tools from Germany.
Let's not worry about Russian submarine drones. The country is already on the financial ropes.
Most people are familiar with the traditional drone, which is basically a small unmanned airplane controlled electronically usually from a ground source. The air drone has the capability of surveillance and attack with explosive weapons.
Presumably, a submarine drone, does the same thing underwater. It is likely controlled from a submarine or possibly other locations.
The key point is that there is likely no high-stakes submarine drone race with the Russians. While the Russians may have been working on a submarine drone, Pres. Reagan previously proved that Russia could be disabled in its militaristic goals by forcing it to overspend on military operations. In the present case, Russian overspending does not come from competitive spending with the US. Instead, we have OPEC to thank for basically driving Russia out of the oil business, which was the major source of their foreign-exchange. With insufficient foreign-exchange, a country cannot purchase items from other countries, such as machine tools from Germany.
Let's not worry about Russian submarine drones. The country is already on the financial ropes.
Amnesty Unconstitutional
According to the Washington Times, a federal judge has declared Pres. Obama's Executive Order on amnesty as unconstitutional.
Sounds like the system is working, but is it?. The Obama Administration will next follow the standard procedure of appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that decision is not favorable, Obama will carry it to the Supreme Court.
Let's assume that the Circuit Court of Appeals sides with the federal judge and declares Obama's amnesty as unconstitutional. Similarly, let's assume that the Supreme Court comes to the same conclusion. Then what? Nothing. Do you really think it'll Obama is going to change his amnesty program because of what anybody else in the federal system says. I'll bet a hat he will not.
Does that mean we are dead in our tracks on amnesty? Not exactly. The Congress can impeach Pres. Obama and also discharge him from office. Will he go? Not likely. Remember, he is Commander-In-Chief of the military, so that he has force of arms. Will the military support him? Soldiers have been trained to follow orders of generals, including the commander-in-chief.
Maybe it's a good thing that there has been a significant increase in public gun sales. I'd hate to see a civil war to depose a president/dictator, but if necessary to save our country, so be it
Sounds like the system is working, but is it?. The Obama Administration will next follow the standard procedure of appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that decision is not favorable, Obama will carry it to the Supreme Court.
Let's assume that the Circuit Court of Appeals sides with the federal judge and declares Obama's amnesty as unconstitutional. Similarly, let's assume that the Supreme Court comes to the same conclusion. Then what? Nothing. Do you really think it'll Obama is going to change his amnesty program because of what anybody else in the federal system says. I'll bet a hat he will not.
Does that mean we are dead in our tracks on amnesty? Not exactly. The Congress can impeach Pres. Obama and also discharge him from office. Will he go? Not likely. Remember, he is Commander-In-Chief of the military, so that he has force of arms. Will the military support him? Soldiers have been trained to follow orders of generals, including the commander-in-chief.
Maybe it's a good thing that there has been a significant increase in public gun sales. I'd hate to see a civil war to depose a president/dictator, but if necessary to save our country, so be it
"Normalizing" Cuba
Pres. Obama has issued an Executive Order to "normalize" relations with Cuba. As a first step, the State Department will open a US Embassy in Havana.
I remind you that Cuba is under the complete control of Raul Castro, a communist dictator. Cuba is also on the list of countries that support terrorism.
However, this all makes sense. Obama is also a communist dictator, who is doing his best to use dictatorial methods in his present position as President of the United States.
Pres. Obama is an ideological communist and as such has an obligation to his ideology by promoting communism wherever he can. This is essentially the same as Muslims promoting their particular brand of culture.
If you like communism, you will be for this move by Pres. Obama. If you are a social conservative believing in individual opportunity and responsibility, you will be against Obama's move, as equivalent to developing the Borg in Star Trek.
I remind you that Cuba is under the complete control of Raul Castro, a communist dictator. Cuba is also on the list of countries that support terrorism.
However, this all makes sense. Obama is also a communist dictator, who is doing his best to use dictatorial methods in his present position as President of the United States.
Pres. Obama is an ideological communist and as such has an obligation to his ideology by promoting communism wherever he can. This is essentially the same as Muslims promoting their particular brand of culture.
If you like communism, you will be for this move by Pres. Obama. If you are a social conservative believing in individual opportunity and responsibility, you will be against Obama's move, as equivalent to developing the Borg in Star Trek.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Maintaining the Military
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader elect Mitch McConnell:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
The Washington Times says, "Politically motivated budget cuts and a hiring freeze have left the Navy with a shipyard workforce incapable of maintaining even its most valuable hardware, including the fleet of hunter-killer submarines and aircraft carriers that are crucial to projecting U.S. force across the globe".
Whether we like it or not, it is the responsibility of the United States to keep peace around the world through military capability. Decreasing military capability leads to world political unrest, as we have recently seen through the programs of Pres. Obama and military budget cuts through sequestering.
You have recently passed a $1.1 trillion budget, of which a large part was the Defense Bill. Consistent with my previous writings, is now time to review the details of the $1.1 Trillion Bill, not only to take out the pork and other irrelevant expenses, but also to beef up the military, which includes the Navy. If you can't do that now, because Democrats still control Congress, put it on your agenda for one of the first things to do for the new January Congress.
Total expenses are important, and a $1.1 trillion budget is excessive. It must be cut. In order to make the total cut and at the same time increase military budgets, consider those other items I have previously mentioned, such as eliminating the Department of Education and cutting back on grants and other public taxpayer expenditures for universities and healthcare. In simpler terms, cut food stamps and have the previous recipients start work in the shipyards. We did in World War II and we can do it again now.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
The Washington Times says, "Politically motivated budget cuts and a hiring freeze have left the Navy with a shipyard workforce incapable of maintaining even its most valuable hardware, including the fleet of hunter-killer submarines and aircraft carriers that are crucial to projecting U.S. force across the globe".
Whether we like it or not, it is the responsibility of the United States to keep peace around the world through military capability. Decreasing military capability leads to world political unrest, as we have recently seen through the programs of Pres. Obama and military budget cuts through sequestering.
You have recently passed a $1.1 trillion budget, of which a large part was the Defense Bill. Consistent with my previous writings, is now time to review the details of the $1.1 Trillion Bill, not only to take out the pork and other irrelevant expenses, but also to beef up the military, which includes the Navy. If you can't do that now, because Democrats still control Congress, put it on your agenda for one of the first things to do for the new January Congress.
Total expenses are important, and a $1.1 trillion budget is excessive. It must be cut. In order to make the total cut and at the same time increase military budgets, consider those other items I have previously mentioned, such as eliminating the Department of Education and cutting back on grants and other public taxpayer expenditures for universities and healthcare. In simpler terms, cut food stamps and have the previous recipients start work in the shipyards. We did in World War II and we can do it again now.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Blunting the Spending Bill
Open email to Speaker Boehner and Sen. Majority Leader Elect Mitch
McConnell:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
Congress has now passed the $1.1 trillion spending bill, which we needed to keep the government running. There is high probability that Pres.
Obama will sign the bill into law.
As the new Congress convenes in January with the Republican majority, it will be time to take the junk out of the Spending Bill.
As presently constituted, the Spending Bill provides funding for Homeland Security through February 27, 2015. The relatively short funding time was included by the Republicans in an obviously misguided effort to apply some sort of limit on Pres. Obama's amnesty program. With the new Congress in January, it will be time to face up to the fact that some drastically realistic action will be needed. For starters, funding for any amnesty involvement should be immediately terminated. Simply stated, the House must revoke any amnesty spending in the original bill, and the Senate must concur. In all probability Pres. Obama will veto the new bill, and it will be up to Congress to make every effort to override the veto. If that doesn't work, look for other ways to kill the amnesty program.
The Spending Bill also provided funding through September 30 for the Defense Department, the Department of Education, the IRS and Healthcare. We need Department of Defense spending and little effort should be made to find pork therein in order to eliminate it. But, any big money that stands out as pork should obviously be addressed and pushed out through a new bill from both the House and Senate. Pres. Obama will likely sign that bill, because he generally is opposed to military spending.
Handling the Department of Education funding is simpler. Eliminate it all. The Department of Education has done more to harm this country than many other actions of government. Defunding it will essentially eliminate it. Pres. Obama will likely veto, in which case you can consider overriding the veto, or if that is not practical, make some concessions that might be more palatable to the President.
Our tax system is abominable, but there's no question that we need a government department to collect taxes and there's no justification for eliminating completely the IRS. The IRS should be funded as necessary to do is its job as a tax collector, but try to eliminate funding for any political involvement that it seems to have undertaken in the past.
When we are talking about Healthcare, we are talking about Obamacare, which is a socialistic program basically involving redistribution of wealth and making healthcare more available to the underprivileged, under the guise of an entitlement rather than welfare, which it is. Healthcare is available to everybody in the country through private sector operations of hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. Obamacare only juggles around the money.
We don't need that. Health insurance companies are prepared to do the job.
Obamacare has not yet forced them out of business. If healthcare insurance companys' charges appear high, they are only a reflection of charges from the healthcare industry, which are presently bloated through public attempts to obtain maximum service with minimum cost by way of government largess.
There are various ways that Congress can modify the healthcare program to make it more amenable to our Democratic/Republic financing. One way is to increase copayments. How about 50%? If you want to spend two days in the hospital, it might cost somebody $3000. If you had to pay $1500, you might think again before deciding on a hospital visit when you could be treated cheaper at home.
All in all, the new Congress should hack away at the $1.1 trillion Spending Bill and get it down to a manageable size by eliminating, as I said before, "junk".
McConnell:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
Congress has now passed the $1.1 trillion spending bill, which we needed to keep the government running. There is high probability that Pres.
Obama will sign the bill into law.
As the new Congress convenes in January with the Republican majority, it will be time to take the junk out of the Spending Bill.
As presently constituted, the Spending Bill provides funding for Homeland Security through February 27, 2015. The relatively short funding time was included by the Republicans in an obviously misguided effort to apply some sort of limit on Pres. Obama's amnesty program. With the new Congress in January, it will be time to face up to the fact that some drastically realistic action will be needed. For starters, funding for any amnesty involvement should be immediately terminated. Simply stated, the House must revoke any amnesty spending in the original bill, and the Senate must concur. In all probability Pres. Obama will veto the new bill, and it will be up to Congress to make every effort to override the veto. If that doesn't work, look for other ways to kill the amnesty program.
The Spending Bill also provided funding through September 30 for the Defense Department, the Department of Education, the IRS and Healthcare. We need Department of Defense spending and little effort should be made to find pork therein in order to eliminate it. But, any big money that stands out as pork should obviously be addressed and pushed out through a new bill from both the House and Senate. Pres. Obama will likely sign that bill, because he generally is opposed to military spending.
Handling the Department of Education funding is simpler. Eliminate it all. The Department of Education has done more to harm this country than many other actions of government. Defunding it will essentially eliminate it. Pres. Obama will likely veto, in which case you can consider overriding the veto, or if that is not practical, make some concessions that might be more palatable to the President.
Our tax system is abominable, but there's no question that we need a government department to collect taxes and there's no justification for eliminating completely the IRS. The IRS should be funded as necessary to do is its job as a tax collector, but try to eliminate funding for any political involvement that it seems to have undertaken in the past.
When we are talking about Healthcare, we are talking about Obamacare, which is a socialistic program basically involving redistribution of wealth and making healthcare more available to the underprivileged, under the guise of an entitlement rather than welfare, which it is. Healthcare is available to everybody in the country through private sector operations of hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. Obamacare only juggles around the money.
We don't need that. Health insurance companies are prepared to do the job.
Obamacare has not yet forced them out of business. If healthcare insurance companys' charges appear high, they are only a reflection of charges from the healthcare industry, which are presently bloated through public attempts to obtain maximum service with minimum cost by way of government largess.
There are various ways that Congress can modify the healthcare program to make it more amenable to our Democratic/Republic financing. One way is to increase copayments. How about 50%? If you want to spend two days in the hospital, it might cost somebody $3000. If you had to pay $1500, you might think again before deciding on a hospital visit when you could be treated cheaper at home.
All in all, the new Congress should hack away at the $1.1 trillion Spending Bill and get it down to a manageable size by eliminating, as I said before, "junk".
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Nancy Pelosi's Nonpower
Open e-mail to Editor of Washington Times:
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Nancy Pelosi's Nonpower
Open e-mail to Editor of Washington Times:
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Amnesty
By Executive Order, Pres. Obama has declared amnesty for more than 4 million immigrants who have broken US immigration laws by entering or remaining in the US illegally. With this action, I have not seen any large demonstrations of illegal immigrants praising the action of Pres. Obama and attempting to rebuild property previously destroyed in antigovernment riots. Conversely, there has been a rather large outcry in the law-abiding community against this action..
There are two issues with respect to the recent Executive Order. Can the President through Executive Order pass new laws, bypassing the Congress? Can the President and his various team members, such as the Justice Department, opt to enforce only certain laws which have previously been passed by Congress?
The Congress has recently entered a lawsuit challenging the President's position on these two issues, particularly the first. While I believe this is a step in the right direction, I'm wondering if this could have a significant outcome. Suppose for example that the Judicial Branch all the way to the Supreme Court declares Pres. Obama's Executive Order on amnesty unconstitutional, what actually will be done about it? First, let's remember that Pres. Obama has control of physical enforcement procedures, such as the use of guns by the FBI and the military, including the National Guard. Will we have a physical revolt, which will actually come to bloodshed? I doubt it. The chances are that in spite of any condemnation by the Judicial, Pres. Obama will go merrily on his way with his amnesty program. In fact, the recently passed spending bill of the House includes money for Obama to implement his amnesty program and unless that is changed in the January sessions of Congress, there will be no stopping it.
This all makes me sad, because it is a major destruction of our society, as previously developed from our Constitution. The Constitution set us up as a country of laws and society has previously come to accept that position. If we are now able to give amnesty to 4 million immigration lawbreakers, one of a few million taxpayers decide not to pay their taxes, and the next President decides to give them amnesty, we will then have anarchy. While the excitement of anarchy may be interesting, the outcome for the continuance of the US as a Democratic Republic is bleak.
There are two issues with respect to the recent Executive Order. Can the President through Executive Order pass new laws, bypassing the Congress? Can the President and his various team members, such as the Justice Department, opt to enforce only certain laws which have previously been passed by Congress?
The Congress has recently entered a lawsuit challenging the President's position on these two issues, particularly the first. While I believe this is a step in the right direction, I'm wondering if this could have a significant outcome. Suppose for example that the Judicial Branch all the way to the Supreme Court declares Pres. Obama's Executive Order on amnesty unconstitutional, what actually will be done about it? First, let's remember that Pres. Obama has control of physical enforcement procedures, such as the use of guns by the FBI and the military, including the National Guard. Will we have a physical revolt, which will actually come to bloodshed? I doubt it. The chances are that in spite of any condemnation by the Judicial, Pres. Obama will go merrily on his way with his amnesty program. In fact, the recently passed spending bill of the House includes money for Obama to implement his amnesty program and unless that is changed in the January sessions of Congress, there will be no stopping it.
This all makes me sad, because it is a major destruction of our society, as previously developed from our Constitution. The Constitution set us up as a country of laws and society has previously come to accept that position. If we are now able to give amnesty to 4 million immigration lawbreakers, one of a few million taxpayers decide not to pay their taxes, and the next President decides to give them amnesty, we will then have anarchy. While the excitement of anarchy may be interesting, the outcome for the continuance of the US as a Democratic Republic is bleak.
Friday, December 12, 2014
$1.1 Trillion Spending Bill
According to the Washington Times, the House passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill. Too much! We will see what the Senate does with it, but Obama seems to be in favor of it and will probably sign it.
I'm hoping that Speaker Boehner is following a suggestion that either originated from other sources or was my contribution. That is, pass the major bill and then come back in January and piecemeal out all of the ridiculous pork and giveaways to Democrats, when both the House and Senate have a substantial Republican majority over the present Congress.
I have my fingers crossed, because of Congress's past record. Let's remember, that we didn't get into an $18 trillion national debt without substantial input from the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.
If the Republicans don't straighten out this spending bill in January when they have much improved majority in the Congress, we can look forward to another revolt in the 2016 elections, at which time many of us will be attempting to throw out the Republican leadership and go to Libertarians, Tea Party or whatever else is left.
I'm hoping that Speaker Boehner is following a suggestion that either originated from other sources or was my contribution. That is, pass the major bill and then come back in January and piecemeal out all of the ridiculous pork and giveaways to Democrats, when both the House and Senate have a substantial Republican majority over the present Congress.
I have my fingers crossed, because of Congress's past record. Let's remember, that we didn't get into an $18 trillion national debt without substantial input from the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.
If the Republicans don't straighten out this spending bill in January when they have much improved majority in the Congress, we can look forward to another revolt in the 2016 elections, at which time many of us will be attempting to throw out the Republican leadership and go to Libertarians, Tea Party or whatever else is left.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Collecting Terrorist Information through Torture
The Senate Intelligence Committee released a report today stating that torture and enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, as used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), were not effective in revealing significant intelligence information for US defense purposes. The CIA strongly disputes that conclusion.
We don't know whether the Senate Intelligence Committee or the CIA is right or wrong or whether they are both partially right. Presumably, the objective of the Senate report is to force the CIA to discontinue using torture and waterboarding, if such is still being used.
If a captured terrorist knows the location of a dirty atomic bomb set to go off in two days and kill or maim thousands of people, I want the CIA to use every means at its disposal to determine the location of that bomb, in order to neutralize it. This includes use of torture, waterboarding and anything else anybody can think of, including pulling out fingernails. However, if the CIA wants the location of where a couple of terrorists meet for coffee and discussions, I'm not much for the torture idea. In other words, the seriousness of the situation will dictate the judgment of what kind of interrogation technique will be used. I can't make that judgment, because there's so much flexibility involved. We have to trust the CIA in most aspects of its operations. I believe we're pretty much convinced that the CIA is trying to protect the American public, and I don't believe we are justified in trying to micromanage it, from a point where we have little or no information.
The big issue seems to be the matter of pain, as judged by abuses of compassion. There are some nuts who believe that minimizing pain in an individual is justification for jeopardizing the lives of millions of people. I'm not one of them. Situations must be handled as they occur. That's why we have the CIA. However, even compassion abusers have some rights and their opinions should be considered.
The idea of torture is based upon an exchange principle. If the tortured person will relieve information, the torturer will relieve applied pain. While it has worked from time immemorial, new technology has entered the scene since the beginning of World War II. The Nazis were developing at that time mind control drugs which in effect when used on an individual allowed that individual to happily and painlessly reveal information. I suspect the CIA is presently using that approach, but perhaps it should be encouraged to engage in additional research and development in that area, which will eventually eliminate torture as obsolete, and simultaneously relieve the pain of compassion abusers.
We don't know whether the Senate Intelligence Committee or the CIA is right or wrong or whether they are both partially right. Presumably, the objective of the Senate report is to force the CIA to discontinue using torture and waterboarding, if such is still being used.
If a captured terrorist knows the location of a dirty atomic bomb set to go off in two days and kill or maim thousands of people, I want the CIA to use every means at its disposal to determine the location of that bomb, in order to neutralize it. This includes use of torture, waterboarding and anything else anybody can think of, including pulling out fingernails. However, if the CIA wants the location of where a couple of terrorists meet for coffee and discussions, I'm not much for the torture idea. In other words, the seriousness of the situation will dictate the judgment of what kind of interrogation technique will be used. I can't make that judgment, because there's so much flexibility involved. We have to trust the CIA in most aspects of its operations. I believe we're pretty much convinced that the CIA is trying to protect the American public, and I don't believe we are justified in trying to micromanage it, from a point where we have little or no information.
The big issue seems to be the matter of pain, as judged by abuses of compassion. There are some nuts who believe that minimizing pain in an individual is justification for jeopardizing the lives of millions of people. I'm not one of them. Situations must be handled as they occur. That's why we have the CIA. However, even compassion abusers have some rights and their opinions should be considered.
The idea of torture is based upon an exchange principle. If the tortured person will relieve information, the torturer will relieve applied pain. While it has worked from time immemorial, new technology has entered the scene since the beginning of World War II. The Nazis were developing at that time mind control drugs which in effect when used on an individual allowed that individual to happily and painlessly reveal information. I suspect the CIA is presently using that approach, but perhaps it should be encouraged to engage in additional research and development in that area, which will eventually eliminate torture as obsolete, and simultaneously relieve the pain of compassion abusers.
Process for Congressional Voting
The Washington Times says, "Congress fast-tracks bills loaded with special interest projects in year-end rush".
The House of Representatives will shut down on any new legislation passage on December 11. The Senate is scheduled to be operating through the end of the year, except for weekends and holidays. Both houses want to push through some legislation before the end of the year.
For example, there is a massive Defense Policy Bill and various tax breaks bills. Some of these, such as the Defense Policy Bill are important and urgent, but, they are loaded with pork.
Standard procedure in both houses of Congress is to negotiate a bills contents in order to obtain enough votes for the bill's passage. This is usually done by some sort of pork process. For example, if a major bill is intended to supply our military with the latest technology in military equipment, it may be necessary to obtain the vote of a representative or senator to include in the bill an allocation for building a chicken house in his area. This process usually works to the advantage of the chicken house advocate, because of the necessity of passing the major objective of the bill. However in the voting process, there is usually a lot of argument and consternation, which I believe is unnecessary. I suggest that r Epresentatives and Senators rethink their attitudes and concentrate on the importance of the major aspects of a particular bill and basically ignore pork additions other accepting them in order to achieve enough votes for the total bill's passage.
Congress has a later opportunity to go through the details of the law, if passed by both houses and signed by the president, and take out the pork or at least neutralize it by a defunding process. This may seem onerous with respect to other business requirements in Congress, but it need not be so. Congressmen and Senators will easily recognize a pork situation, if presented quickly and clearly to them and vote against its continuance. None of this will take much time. There is a possibility a filibuster from the pork proponent, but the new Congress in January should easily have enough votes to kill any such ridiculous filibuster in support of a pork situation.
The House of Representatives will shut down on any new legislation passage on December 11. The Senate is scheduled to be operating through the end of the year, except for weekends and holidays. Both houses want to push through some legislation before the end of the year.
For example, there is a massive Defense Policy Bill and various tax breaks bills. Some of these, such as the Defense Policy Bill are important and urgent, but, they are loaded with pork.
Standard procedure in both houses of Congress is to negotiate a bills contents in order to obtain enough votes for the bill's passage. This is usually done by some sort of pork process. For example, if a major bill is intended to supply our military with the latest technology in military equipment, it may be necessary to obtain the vote of a representative or senator to include in the bill an allocation for building a chicken house in his area. This process usually works to the advantage of the chicken house advocate, because of the necessity of passing the major objective of the bill. However in the voting process, there is usually a lot of argument and consternation, which I believe is unnecessary. I suggest that r Epresentatives and Senators rethink their attitudes and concentrate on the importance of the major aspects of a particular bill and basically ignore pork additions other accepting them in order to achieve enough votes for the total bill's passage.
Congress has a later opportunity to go through the details of the law, if passed by both houses and signed by the president, and take out the pork or at least neutralize it by a defunding process. This may seem onerous with respect to other business requirements in Congress, but it need not be so. Congressmen and Senators will easily recognize a pork situation, if presented quickly and clearly to them and vote against its continuance. None of this will take much time. There is a possibility a filibuster from the pork proponent, but the new Congress in January should easily have enough votes to kill any such ridiculous filibuster in support of a pork situation.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Protecting US Citizens Abroad
Luke Somers is an American citizen photojournalist. He was working as a translator at a National Dialogue Conference, which was held at Sana'a, Yemen, as part of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2051. It should be noted that Luke Somers was not an employee of the US government.
During Luke's presence in Sana'a, he was captured by Al Qaeda and was being held for ransom/negotiations, with threat of death. The Obama Administration ran a special task force to try to save Somers, but it failed. Al Qaeda has now executed Somers.
The question seems to be what do you do to protect American citizens in dangerous parts of the world? It's not an easy one to answer, but I think I can offer clarity on the subject.
The first thing to consider is whether a particular country is dangerous to American citizens. We can easily pick out a few that are not dangerous, such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Some of the clearly dangerous ones are Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Some appear to be marginal, such as Mexico, Cuba, Lebanon, and Israel. However, I don't think that's specific enough.
I believe the United States government should designate which countries of the world are unsafe for Americans to travel and work in. Travel would mean entry to the country for business reasons, family contacts, tourism, missionary and other religious work. Perhaps the best test whether a country is dangerous for Americans is whether the United States maintains a working embassy with minimal security in the country.
If a country is on the dangerous list, the position of the United States should be that Americans are not restricted from entering or operating within the country, but the United States government will take no extraordinary means to protect them or save them from further harm if captured or detained. Persons excluded from that position would be all employees of the United States government, including military personnel, federal representatives and congressmen, State Department officials, spies, or any activity as long as they are on the federal government payroll. Note that this does not include state or local officials, such as governors or mayors. Retired government officials on pension would not be protected, except for US ex-presidents. I'm not sure what to do about the employees of contractors to the US government, but there should be a clear resolution.
Recovering a detained American government employee might occasionally involve payment of ransom or similar monetary negotiation. However, the standard US government action would usually be a declaration of war on the country or group involved in the capture or detention, followed by subsequent strong military action unless there is immediate release. The military action would only be terminated on the unimpeded release of the captured or detained US employee. Assassination of the US employee by the captors would be justification for continuation of the strong military action as a retribution and lesson to others who may be tempted to follow a similar route.
During Luke's presence in Sana'a, he was captured by Al Qaeda and was being held for ransom/negotiations, with threat of death. The Obama Administration ran a special task force to try to save Somers, but it failed. Al Qaeda has now executed Somers.
The question seems to be what do you do to protect American citizens in dangerous parts of the world? It's not an easy one to answer, but I think I can offer clarity on the subject.
The first thing to consider is whether a particular country is dangerous to American citizens. We can easily pick out a few that are not dangerous, such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Some of the clearly dangerous ones are Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Some appear to be marginal, such as Mexico, Cuba, Lebanon, and Israel. However, I don't think that's specific enough.
I believe the United States government should designate which countries of the world are unsafe for Americans to travel and work in. Travel would mean entry to the country for business reasons, family contacts, tourism, missionary and other religious work. Perhaps the best test whether a country is dangerous for Americans is whether the United States maintains a working embassy with minimal security in the country.
If a country is on the dangerous list, the position of the United States should be that Americans are not restricted from entering or operating within the country, but the United States government will take no extraordinary means to protect them or save them from further harm if captured or detained. Persons excluded from that position would be all employees of the United States government, including military personnel, federal representatives and congressmen, State Department officials, spies, or any activity as long as they are on the federal government payroll. Note that this does not include state or local officials, such as governors or mayors. Retired government officials on pension would not be protected, except for US ex-presidents. I'm not sure what to do about the employees of contractors to the US government, but there should be a clear resolution.
Recovering a detained American government employee might occasionally involve payment of ransom or similar monetary negotiation. However, the standard US government action would usually be a declaration of war on the country or group involved in the capture or detention, followed by subsequent strong military action unless there is immediate release. The military action would only be terminated on the unimpeded release of the captured or detained US employee. Assassination of the US employee by the captors would be justification for continuation of the strong military action as a retribution and lesson to others who may be tempted to follow a similar route.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Rioting in Black Communities
Open email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Lawbreaking in Black Communities
Hillary Clinton says that police officers are more apt to stop and interrogate black persons than white persons. This is true. In making her statement, Hillary is implying that there is racial discrimination. If she is implying this, it is untrue. Fact is that more black persons than white persons have broken laws and are candidates for interrogation.
This could be easily resolved by the black community acknowledging that this is a country of laws and that black people should not break laws anymore than white people. If black people have grievances, there are other means of resolution rather than resorting to violence, which in many cases involves destruction of property or stealing of same. Positive programs are becoming involved in law enforcement groups, such as police officers or higher levels such as district attorneys or prosecutors. Black activities should never involve rabble rousing, which is only a recipe for lawbreaking
This could be easily resolved by the black community acknowledging that this is a country of laws and that black people should not break laws anymore than white people. If black people have grievances, there are other means of resolution rather than resorting to violence, which in many cases involves destruction of property or stealing of same. Positive programs are becoming involved in law enforcement groups, such as police officers or higher levels such as district attorneys or prosecutors. Black activities should never involve rabble rousing, which is only a recipe for lawbreaking
Federal Control of State Lands
The Washington Times says that the state of Utah plans to take over from the federal government 31.2 million acres of Utah land now under federal government control. Before you get excited, this does not include national parks and national monuments, such as Arches, Bryce, and Zion.
Utah's land size is 54.3 million acres and the federal government controls more than half of it.
The federal government controls more than 50 percent of all land west of Kansas — in Utah’s case, it’s 64.5 percent. This means that this large amount of land is unavailable for private ownership and development.
Utah state officials will proceed with a program of education, negotiation, legislation and litigation. It will not involve use of military or police force.
This will also hopefully serve as a model for other Western states to similarly join in reducing federal control of state lands.
It should be noted that moving federal control of land to state control will not automatically make land available to the public for private development, but it is at least a step in the right direction of reducing the onerous controls of the federal government departments, such as the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service.
Let's remember that is the intended passage of the Keystone pipeline through federal government controlled lands that has held up the construction of this pipeline for the last several years.
Utah's land size is 54.3 million acres and the federal government controls more than half of it.
The federal government controls more than 50 percent of all land west of Kansas — in Utah’s case, it’s 64.5 percent. This means that this large amount of land is unavailable for private ownership and development.
Utah state officials will proceed with a program of education, negotiation, legislation and litigation. It will not involve use of military or police force.
This will also hopefully serve as a model for other Western states to similarly join in reducing federal control of state lands.
It should be noted that moving federal control of land to state control will not automatically make land available to the public for private development, but it is at least a step in the right direction of reducing the onerous controls of the federal government departments, such as the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service.
Let's remember that is the intended passage of the Keystone pipeline through federal government controlled lands that has held up the construction of this pipeline for the last several years.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Reducing Black Rioting
Open email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
