Open Email to Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Dear Sen. McConnell,
Congratulations on the wonderful job you are doing as Senate Majority Leader! Devil Harry Reid is behind us. He has done tremendous damage, but we look to you to recover as much as possible.
I am obtaining my information on your activities from the Washington Times. I am particularly favorably impressed with your procedural system of allowing open discussion on all bills and amendments with the aspect of voting on each amendment, so that it is clear who remains in the Senate as Harry reads Associates. We want to watch out particularly for Charles Schumer. He is the new danger in opposing regain of US economic capability, decrease of government red tape, and leadership in the world.
The Washington Times says you have passed a blueprint Friday morning to govern spending and provide a path for repealing Obamacare. This includes reining in the Common Core education standards, banning the government from assessing a carbon tax and preparing new sanctions against Iran should that nation violate a future nuclear arms deal.
I would like to comment on each of the latter three.
As it exists, local school boards are forced to accept Common Core Education Standards in order to continue receiving federal subsidies of taxpayer money. The difficulty with this is that the federal government has no special capability of what is an appropriate education and should not be forcing that onto local school boards using taxpayer money as a selling point. There should be no subsidies to local school boards. Local school boards should pay for their own operations through local taxes, which usually involve real estate taxes. I abhor this process, because it smacks of socialism wherein many people without personal interest in a school program are forced to pay for it. What we need is not only elimination of education subsidies but elimination also of the Department of Education, which I have been preaching on for several years.
The carbon tax is even worse. It is downright fraud. There is no connection between any of the claims of disastrous climate change with respect to the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, etc.. What more can I say? Hoodwinking the American public to pay for an imaginary danger is not only downright dishonest, it is immoral as well. From a technical standpoint is also unconstitutional, since climate control is not one of the 17 points which were specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
Finally I have just written separately on the negotiations of the State Department with Iran concerning continuing production of fissionable uranium 235, which is essential for use in an atomic bomb. Latest report is that the State Department is considering allowing the use of these centrifuges for the separation techniques for the collection of U-235 as the bomb raw material, which is absolutely ridiculous. The State Department should advise Iran that they must completely shut down operation of the centrifuges, and melt them down into raw material steel for reuse in construction of bridges buildings, etc. if in subsequent satellite surveillance and other more conventional surveillance techniques it is learned that the centrifuges continue to operate, we should rapidly bomb them out of existence.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
Save the Manatee
I always deny that there is any connection between carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuel burning and global warming/climate change, but the UN and the Obama administration have spent billions of dollars to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
The Washington Times reports that the manatee needs the warm water generated by coal burning power plants as they also emit carbon dioxide.. Here's a quote from the Washington Times, "From November to April, hundreds of manatees huddle in the warm discharge canal of one of Florida’s biggest coal-fired plants, the Big Bend Power Station near Tampa, as camera-toting families point and laugh from a viewing deck at the gentle creatures lolling near the smokestacks. Some two-thirds of Florida’s endangered manatees rely on discharge waters from power plants for winter warmth, according to federal biologists."
This is a real quandary for the Obama administration. How do we protect the manatee as an endangered species, from dying of the cold and still maintain the pressure to eliminate coal burning power plants?
The Obama administration is famous for coming up with ridiculous suggestions. Here is one they might latch onto: We shut down the Big Bend Power Station, continue to push electricity generation from wind turbines, and then use electric heaters to heat the water in the canal near the then defunct power station.
The Washington Times reports that the manatee needs the warm water generated by coal burning power plants as they also emit carbon dioxide.. Here's a quote from the Washington Times, "From November to April, hundreds of manatees huddle in the warm discharge canal of one of Florida’s biggest coal-fired plants, the Big Bend Power Station near Tampa, as camera-toting families point and laugh from a viewing deck at the gentle creatures lolling near the smokestacks. Some two-thirds of Florida’s endangered manatees rely on discharge waters from power plants for winter warmth, according to federal biologists."
This is a real quandary for the Obama administration. How do we protect the manatee as an endangered species, from dying of the cold and still maintain the pressure to eliminate coal burning power plants?
The Obama administration is famous for coming up with ridiculous suggestions. Here is one they might latch onto: We shut down the Big Bend Power Station, continue to push electricity generation from wind turbines, and then use electric heaters to heat the water in the canal near the then defunct power station.
Rebuttal to Sen. Bernie Sanders Socialistic Agenda
Socialist Bernie Sanders, Senato r from Vermont, is still preaching his socialistic views.
He is against the Republican proposed budget for the following reasons: It would throw millions of Americans off health insurance. It would cut $4.3 trillion from programs like Medicare, food stamps and Medicaid. Education programs would be scaled back. Pell Grants for college students would be frozen. Wall Street regulations would be reduced. It doesn’t address the 11 percent real unemployment. It doesn’t create any jobs. It doesn’t fix crumbling roads and bridges. It doesn’t make college more affordable. It doesn’t raise the minimum wage. It would leave in place tax loopholes that let the wealthy and big corporations avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Let's look at these things one of the time.
Healthcare insurance is a deception. People don't need healthcare insurance. They need healthcare, which they already have through their own efforts of home treatment and access to emergency rooms and hospitals, where they do not have to pay if they are poor.
Cutting taxpayer subsidies for users of Medicare, food stamps and Medicaid is logical. Users of those facilities should be paying more out of their own pockets, rather than depending upon their neighbors to pay for them. Obviously, there are indigent people unable to cope in our present society, and the rest of us have a responsibility to aid in their continued existence. We call this welfare. However, welfare recipients should not be living on a grander scale in any form than those who pay for the welfare.
Everyone must be responsible for his own advanced education. We already have free education in grammar and high schools. "Free" means taxpayer supported, which is already a socialistic program. For those persons who spend their money on cars, new houses and other items of at least semi-luxury, they have apparently decided to do without the expense of an education or expect, as socialists do, have their neighbors pay for it. Education programs would only be scaled back if there are a reduced number of applicants for college education. That's the free market. However if individuals want to come up with the money, there would be no scaling back. Pell grants are just taxpayer gifts to college students. They should be eliminated. Higher education is a personal responsibility. In fact, we should take another look at whether neighbors should be paying the cost of sending your kids to grammar school and high school. It's not the government's job to make higher education affordable. The market and individual effort will decide what is affordable.
I don't know what Wall Street regulations will be reduced, but it is hardly likely that any Republican proposal will give Wall Street operators an opportunity to fleece the American public. Republicans well know that private companies and corporations are basically responsible for the health of the economy. They obviously will do nothing to hinder the operations of those companies, which would be the case if some sort of fraudulent feeling was engendered in the public mind.
It does indirectly address the 11% real unemployment rate by trying to reduce government restrictions, and allowing companies to grow with the hiring of more people.
It does indirectly fix crumbling roads and bridges. Spending less money on giveaway programs will allow funds for road and bridge maintenance.
There may be some tax loopholes which should be closed, but I don't know of any specifically. However, I do know that the federal government taxes corporations and then subsequently taxes again the stockholders who own those corporations. This double taxation never made any sense to me. Just another gimmick to collect more federal revenue to establish a broader socialistic society.
He is against the Republican proposed budget for the following reasons: It would throw millions of Americans off health insurance. It would cut $4.3 trillion from programs like Medicare, food stamps and Medicaid. Education programs would be scaled back. Pell Grants for college students would be frozen. Wall Street regulations would be reduced. It doesn’t address the 11 percent real unemployment. It doesn’t create any jobs. It doesn’t fix crumbling roads and bridges. It doesn’t make college more affordable. It doesn’t raise the minimum wage. It would leave in place tax loopholes that let the wealthy and big corporations avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Let's look at these things one of the time.
Healthcare insurance is a deception. People don't need healthcare insurance. They need healthcare, which they already have through their own efforts of home treatment and access to emergency rooms and hospitals, where they do not have to pay if they are poor.
Cutting taxpayer subsidies for users of Medicare, food stamps and Medicaid is logical. Users of those facilities should be paying more out of their own pockets, rather than depending upon their neighbors to pay for them. Obviously, there are indigent people unable to cope in our present society, and the rest of us have a responsibility to aid in their continued existence. We call this welfare. However, welfare recipients should not be living on a grander scale in any form than those who pay for the welfare.
Everyone must be responsible for his own advanced education. We already have free education in grammar and high schools. "Free" means taxpayer supported, which is already a socialistic program. For those persons who spend their money on cars, new houses and other items of at least semi-luxury, they have apparently decided to do without the expense of an education or expect, as socialists do, have their neighbors pay for it. Education programs would only be scaled back if there are a reduced number of applicants for college education. That's the free market. However if individuals want to come up with the money, there would be no scaling back. Pell grants are just taxpayer gifts to college students. They should be eliminated. Higher education is a personal responsibility. In fact, we should take another look at whether neighbors should be paying the cost of sending your kids to grammar school and high school. It's not the government's job to make higher education affordable. The market and individual effort will decide what is affordable.
I don't know what Wall Street regulations will be reduced, but it is hardly likely that any Republican proposal will give Wall Street operators an opportunity to fleece the American public. Republicans well know that private companies and corporations are basically responsible for the health of the economy. They obviously will do nothing to hinder the operations of those companies, which would be the case if some sort of fraudulent feeling was engendered in the public mind.
It does indirectly address the 11% real unemployment rate by trying to reduce government restrictions, and allowing companies to grow with the hiring of more people.
It does indirectly fix crumbling roads and bridges. Spending less money on giveaway programs will allow funds for road and bridge maintenance.
There may be some tax loopholes which should be closed, but I don't know of any specifically. However, I do know that the federal government taxes corporations and then subsequently taxes again the stockholders who own those corporations. This double taxation never made any sense to me. Just another gimmick to collect more federal revenue to establish a broader socialistic society.
Sen. Mitch McConnell on States Rights for Air Quality
Sen. Mitch McConnell is the new Republican Majority Leader in the Senate.
He apparently does not believe that carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal is devastating to the climate. With that apparent view, he has decided to fight EPA regulations, which limit the use of coal in generating electricity by power plants.
While he has in the Senate a majority of Republicans, he does not have enough to overcome Democratic filibusters or overriding Presidential vetoes. In view of this, he has decided on a different tack, which involves convincing the various states to not adhere to or cooperate with the EPA on coal burning at power plants. With this approach, I believe he is on solid ground with respect to the Constitution and its Amendments.
Amendment 10 of the Constitution says that powers not delegated to the United States government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, respectively.
Article I of the the Constitution concerns the Legislature; that is, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Section 8 of Article I specifically identifies the powers delegated to the US government. It does this by specifying that the House of Representatives may generate or collect money for specific purposes. Any purposes not mentioned are automatically reserved to the states, as covered by Amendment 10. The specific delegations to the US government are as follows:
1. Borrow money.
2. Regulate commerce.
3. Establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization and uniform Laws on bankruptcy.
4. Coin money regulate its values and fixed the standards of Weights and Measures.
5. Punish counterfeiters of US securities and coin.
6. Establish Post Offices and post Roads.
7. Establish Patent and Trademark system.
8. Establish courts lesser than the Supreme Court.
9. Define and punish piracy and felonies on the seas.
10. Declare war, grant private military rights, and establish rules concerning captives.
11. Raise and support an Army, with funding for no longer two years.
12. Establish and maintain a Navy.
13. Establish rules for regulation of land and naval forces.
14. Call the militia to execute US laws, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions.
15. Organize, arm, and discipline a militia for service in the US, with officer appointment and training authority reserved to the states.
16. Establish a seat of government (DC), forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other useful buildings, with each site no greater than 10 mi.².
17. Make laws for establishing the foregoing powers.
Notice that there is no federal power in the above 17, which allows the federal government to establish rules for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants nor establish laws protecting endangered species. Those rights are exclusively reserved to the states. Any attempts to work these into federal law, such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act are unconstitutional.
Sen. Mitch McConnell is on the right track with respect to is working with the states on control of anything involving air.
He apparently does not believe that carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal is devastating to the climate. With that apparent view, he has decided to fight EPA regulations, which limit the use of coal in generating electricity by power plants.
While he has in the Senate a majority of Republicans, he does not have enough to overcome Democratic filibusters or overriding Presidential vetoes. In view of this, he has decided on a different tack, which involves convincing the various states to not adhere to or cooperate with the EPA on coal burning at power plants. With this approach, I believe he is on solid ground with respect to the Constitution and its Amendments.
Amendment 10 of the Constitution says that powers not delegated to the United States government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, respectively.
Article I of the the Constitution concerns the Legislature; that is, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Section 8 of Article I specifically identifies the powers delegated to the US government. It does this by specifying that the House of Representatives may generate or collect money for specific purposes. Any purposes not mentioned are automatically reserved to the states, as covered by Amendment 10. The specific delegations to the US government are as follows:
1. Borrow money.
2. Regulate commerce.
3. Establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization and uniform Laws on bankruptcy.
4. Coin money regulate its values and fixed the standards of Weights and Measures.
5. Punish counterfeiters of US securities and coin.
6. Establish Post Offices and post Roads.
7. Establish Patent and Trademark system.
8. Establish courts lesser than the Supreme Court.
9. Define and punish piracy and felonies on the seas.
10. Declare war, grant private military rights, and establish rules concerning captives.
11. Raise and support an Army, with funding for no longer two years.
12. Establish and maintain a Navy.
13. Establish rules for regulation of land and naval forces.
14. Call the militia to execute US laws, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions.
15. Organize, arm, and discipline a militia for service in the US, with officer appointment and training authority reserved to the states.
16. Establish a seat of government (DC), forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other useful buildings, with each site no greater than 10 mi.².
17. Make laws for establishing the foregoing powers.
Notice that there is no federal power in the above 17, which allows the federal government to establish rules for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants nor establish laws protecting endangered species. Those rights are exclusively reserved to the states. Any attempts to work these into federal law, such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act are unconstitutional.
Sen. Mitch McConnell is on the right track with respect to is working with the states on control of anything involving air.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
US Mandatory Voting
The US voting public contains a majority of Democrats; 47% Democrats and 41% Republicans.
In order to be sure that all Democrats will vote and subsequently run the country, Pres. Obama has suggested mandatory voting for the US voting public. Since his original proposal, White House representatives have backpedaled amid a firestorm of public objection.
The U.S. Constitution basically specifies that a citizen's voting rights is a privilege providing he meets the qualifications. There is no indication in the Constitution that a potential voter has a responsibility to vote.
Sen. Rubio says that mandatory voting would be a violation of the First Amendment of free speech. Any person deciding not to vote is exercising his free-speech rights. If you force him to vote, he has no free-speech rights.
The likelihood is that Pres. Obama is also looking toward his objective of world government,, which includes elimination of the US as an independent country. If we have mandatory voting in the US, the next step is to have global mandatory voting, with an override of any specific country's vote.
In order to be sure that all Democrats will vote and subsequently run the country, Pres. Obama has suggested mandatory voting for the US voting public. Since his original proposal, White House representatives have backpedaled amid a firestorm of public objection.
The U.S. Constitution basically specifies that a citizen's voting rights is a privilege providing he meets the qualifications. There is no indication in the Constitution that a potential voter has a responsibility to vote.
Sen. Rubio says that mandatory voting would be a violation of the First Amendment of free speech. Any person deciding not to vote is exercising his free-speech rights. If you force him to vote, he has no free-speech rights.
The likelihood is that Pres. Obama is also looking toward his objective of world government,, which includes elimination of the US as an independent country. If we have mandatory voting in the US, the next step is to have global mandatory voting, with an override of any specific country's vote.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Hillary in Jail
Open Email to Republican Leadership:
Dear Republican Leadership,
I have previously said that in order to avoid another disastrous President for this country, we need to disqualify Hillary Clinton. I further suggested that the best way to do this would be to have her serve jail time and to accomplish this we we can hopefully prosecute her under a federal law concerning her handling of confidential information during her term as Secretary of State.
This past Sunday, the Washington Times reviewed the use of Mrs. Clinton's private email system during her term as Secretary of State, but spent significantly more wordage on ostensible email problems with governors. The Times apparently justifies this approach to determine whether Republicans have the moral high ground in this email dispute.
Let me respectively caution you not to be misled by red Herring considerations of governors email practices and moral high ground. Neither of these have a direct bearing on our objective of trying to have Hillary serve jail time. In other words do not be distracted by miscellaneous aspects of the problem brought up by Democrats/socialists,. Ignore all of that and concentrate on only one point. How can we successfully prosecute Hillary under a federal law so that we can have her serve jail time and be disqualified from the future holding of public office?
Dear Republican Leadership,
I have previously said that in order to avoid another disastrous President for this country, we need to disqualify Hillary Clinton. I further suggested that the best way to do this would be to have her serve jail time and to accomplish this we we can hopefully prosecute her under a federal law concerning her handling of confidential information during her term as Secretary of State.
This past Sunday, the Washington Times reviewed the use of Mrs. Clinton's private email system during her term as Secretary of State, but spent significantly more wordage on ostensible email problems with governors. The Times apparently justifies this approach to determine whether Republicans have the moral high ground in this email dispute.
Let me respectively caution you not to be misled by red Herring considerations of governors email practices and moral high ground. Neither of these have a direct bearing on our objective of trying to have Hillary serve jail time. In other words do not be distracted by miscellaneous aspects of the problem brought up by Democrats/socialists,. Ignore all of that and concentrate on only one point. How can we successfully prosecute Hillary under a federal law so that we can have her serve jail time and be disqualified from the future holding of public office?
Sunday, March 15, 2015
New Chemical Safety Board Head
Open Email to Rep Issa and Sen. Imhofe:
Dear Rep Issa and Sen. Imhofe,
Although the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has done much good work over many years, it has been in political turmoil for the last few years.
The CSB, is an independent U.S. federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. It exists for the advice and by the consent of Congress. It has no power to regulate. Board members are nominated by the President but must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. As an independent agency, the CSB is independent of Presidential control; i.e. the President has no power to dismiss the agency head or a board member. This effectively means the CAB is under the control of Congress. For the House of Representatives, it is you,Rep Issa, and for the Senate, it is you, Sen. Imhofe.
The fact that the CSB has been in political turmoil for the last several years is a result of your inadequate control. However, you now have an opportunity to properly do your job.
The March 9 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has two articles on the CSB.
The article on page 31 concerns Board Chairman Moure Eraso leaving the Board, when his 5-year term expires in June.
To replace Moure Eraso, the article on page 8 concerns Pres. Obama's probable nomination of Vanessa Sutherland, a Department of Transportation lawyer, to become the next chair of the CSB. I suppose the fact that Vanessa Sutherland is a black woman is irrelevant. Instead, we will concentrate on the fact that she is a trained lawyer, presumably with insignificant background concerning industrial chemical operations. Her current job is handling legal, policy, regulatory, and enforcement issues affecting companies to transport hazardous materials. Sounds like an appropriate job for a lawyer. Prior to that, she was concerned with the tobacco industry as senior counsel to Altria Client Services and Philip Morris. Before that, she held various legal roles in the telecommunications industry. Again, notice a complete absence of any education or experience with respect to industrial chemical and mechanical processes, which she would supervise as a new head of CSB.
Compared to Vanessa Sutherland, Moure Eraso has a better background of experience, albeit not very good. He holds undergraduate and graduate degree in engineering from Bucknell University, which is significant. His masters and doctorate in environmental health from the University of Cincinnati were only partially helpful at the CSB. He was a university professor for 23 years, which gave him no experience in management nor any practical experience in working with industrial chemical and mechanical operations. In addition, he developed into a political animal, with which his inability to manage resulted in CSB turmoil.
Rep.Issa and Sen. Imhofe, as I said previously, you now have an opportunity recover at least partially from your ineptitude in previously handling the CSB.
The first thing to do is to advise Pres. Obama that you will reject the nomination of Vanessa Sutherland, because she is unqualified. While you can then go on to request additional nominations from Pres. Obama, I believe you will be more effective in finding your own candidates from the chemical industry. I'm sure there are many qualified engineers with managerial experience, either recently retired are about to be retired who would like to do some good for their country. After appointing a properly qualified person, you must continue to exercise oversight to see that your choice has been justified and that the CSB is then running smoothly to do a competent job, as it did many years earlier.
Dear Rep Issa and Sen. Imhofe,
Although the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has done much good work over many years, it has been in political turmoil for the last few years.
The CSB, is an independent U.S. federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. It exists for the advice and by the consent of Congress. It has no power to regulate. Board members are nominated by the President but must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. As an independent agency, the CSB is independent of Presidential control; i.e. the President has no power to dismiss the agency head or a board member. This effectively means the CAB is under the control of Congress. For the House of Representatives, it is you,Rep Issa, and for the Senate, it is you, Sen. Imhofe.
The fact that the CSB has been in political turmoil for the last several years is a result of your inadequate control. However, you now have an opportunity to properly do your job.
The March 9 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has two articles on the CSB.
The article on page 31 concerns Board Chairman Moure Eraso leaving the Board, when his 5-year term expires in June.
To replace Moure Eraso, the article on page 8 concerns Pres. Obama's probable nomination of Vanessa Sutherland, a Department of Transportation lawyer, to become the next chair of the CSB. I suppose the fact that Vanessa Sutherland is a black woman is irrelevant. Instead, we will concentrate on the fact that she is a trained lawyer, presumably with insignificant background concerning industrial chemical operations. Her current job is handling legal, policy, regulatory, and enforcement issues affecting companies to transport hazardous materials. Sounds like an appropriate job for a lawyer. Prior to that, she was concerned with the tobacco industry as senior counsel to Altria Client Services and Philip Morris. Before that, she held various legal roles in the telecommunications industry. Again, notice a complete absence of any education or experience with respect to industrial chemical and mechanical processes, which she would supervise as a new head of CSB.
Compared to Vanessa Sutherland, Moure Eraso has a better background of experience, albeit not very good. He holds undergraduate and graduate degree in engineering from Bucknell University, which is significant. His masters and doctorate in environmental health from the University of Cincinnati were only partially helpful at the CSB. He was a university professor for 23 years, which gave him no experience in management nor any practical experience in working with industrial chemical and mechanical operations. In addition, he developed into a political animal, with which his inability to manage resulted in CSB turmoil.
Rep.Issa and Sen. Imhofe, as I said previously, you now have an opportunity recover at least partially from your ineptitude in previously handling the CSB.
The first thing to do is to advise Pres. Obama that you will reject the nomination of Vanessa Sutherland, because she is unqualified. While you can then go on to request additional nominations from Pres. Obama, I believe you will be more effective in finding your own candidates from the chemical industry. I'm sure there are many qualified engineers with managerial experience, either recently retired are about to be retired who would like to do some good for their country. After appointing a properly qualified person, you must continue to exercise oversight to see that your choice has been justified and that the CSB is then running smoothly to do a competent job, as it did many years earlier.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Sen. Cotton (AR) on Iran Nuclear
Open Email to Sen. Cotton (AR):
Dear Sen. Cotton,
It is reported that you initiated a letter addressed to Iranian leaders and signed by 46 other Senate Republicans. The letter warned Iranian leaders that Congress could undo any nuclear deal that's reached by the Obama Administration, through Secretary of State Kerry.
Congratulations for clarifying the US position! I'm sure that Iran has felt that it has had the US on the ropes in nuclear discussions, which have lasted two years without any results.
However, your letter lacks one significant point. The Iranians have had two years to perfect their uranium enrichment program to produce a nuclear bomb, and your letter does nothing to stop that. It merely implies a continuance of time for the Iranians to perfect their fissionable U-235 isotope production techniques.
Dear Sen. Cotton,
It is reported that you initiated a letter addressed to Iranian leaders and signed by 46 other Senate Republicans. The letter warned Iranian leaders that Congress could undo any nuclear deal that's reached by the Obama Administration, through Secretary of State Kerry.
Congratulations for clarifying the US position! I'm sure that Iran has felt that it has had the US on the ropes in nuclear discussions, which have lasted two years without any results.
However, your letter lacks one significant point. The Iranians have had two years to perfect their uranium enrichment program to produce a nuclear bomb, and your letter does nothing to stop that. It merely implies a continuance of time for the Iranians to perfect their fissionable U-235 isotope production techniques.
Sen. Cornyn on Texas Independence Day
Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
I see you are still dealing with subjects of minor significance.
In an earlier newsletter, you were complaining about human trafficking. I ready commented on that, with the suggestion that since we already have laws covering that, the only remaining problem is enforcement of same. That's a matter for the Justice Department.
I've also read your net latest newsletter, in which you are congratulating people for sending you 350 photos involving Texas Independence Day. I guess my question is whether you are a US senator or a Texas historian. Is this a reasonable way for a US senator to be spending his time when we are faced with many significant domestic and world problems? The only political justification I can think of, in your concentrating on this latter point, is that you're trying to establish enough independent feeling in Texas residents that they will want to secede from the union. Ex-Gov. Rick Perry has already taken us down that road. Forget it.
With all due respect, I suggest, Sen. Cornyn, that you get on with the business of this country and stop frittering your time away.
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
I see you are still dealing with subjects of minor significance.
In an earlier newsletter, you were complaining about human trafficking. I ready commented on that, with the suggestion that since we already have laws covering that, the only remaining problem is enforcement of same. That's a matter for the Justice Department.
I've also read your net latest newsletter, in which you are congratulating people for sending you 350 photos involving Texas Independence Day. I guess my question is whether you are a US senator or a Texas historian. Is this a reasonable way for a US senator to be spending his time when we are faced with many significant domestic and world problems? The only political justification I can think of, in your concentrating on this latter point, is that you're trying to establish enough independent feeling in Texas residents that they will want to secede from the union. Ex-Gov. Rick Perry has already taken us down that road. Forget it.
With all due respect, I suggest, Sen. Cornyn, that you get on with the business of this country and stop frittering your time away.
Sen. Cruz Newsletter
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your latest newsletter of three parts. You discuss the mission of NASA, nuclear Iran, and the Selma march anniversary. I presume you consider their importance in the same order to which you list them. I do not.
I have said previously that I believe it was a mistake for you to accept an appointment involving the direction of NASA. It's not that NASA is unimportant to total US programs, but it is insignificant compared to many others, and your acceptance of the position places you in a sideline of importance as a Senate leader.
Your discussion on nuclear Iran is of utmost importance not only to the US but to the world at large. It should be the first in your consideration of these three items.
For political purposes, it's nice to mention the anniversary of the Selma march, but not necessary to go on to the extent that you did. It is basically insignificant with respect to the future of the US. It's history, which seems to be the forte of Sen. Cornyn these days as he collects photos of Texas.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your latest newsletter of three parts. You discuss the mission of NASA, nuclear Iran, and the Selma march anniversary. I presume you consider their importance in the same order to which you list them. I do not.
I have said previously that I believe it was a mistake for you to accept an appointment involving the direction of NASA. It's not that NASA is unimportant to total US programs, but it is insignificant compared to many others, and your acceptance of the position places you in a sideline of importance as a Senate leader.
Your discussion on nuclear Iran is of utmost importance not only to the US but to the world at large. It should be the first in your consideration of these three items.
For political purposes, it's nice to mention the anniversary of the Selma march, but not necessary to go on to the extent that you did. It is basically insignificant with respect to the future of the US. It's history, which seems to be the forte of Sen. Cornyn these days as he collects photos of Texas.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Mrs. Clinton for Jail
Open Email to Republican Leadership:
Dear Republican Leadership,
The only thing worse for this country than having Hillary Clinton as the next President, would be a rerun of Pres. Obama.. Everything possible should be done to thwart the election of Hillary Clinton as the next President.
The Washington Times says, "Hillary Clinton could face jail time as email scandal sparks legal challenges". Mrs. Clinton could face up to three years in prison per message if she is found to have broken her word and handled classified information on the secret account, one open records expert told The Washington Times.
This must absolutely be followed up. Having Hillary Clinton serve jail time would not be a guarantee of support loss from dyed in the wool Clinton supporters, but it would do a lot to disqualify her. If in addition, she could become ineligible for holding future government office because of her conviction on fraud and serving jail time, this would be absolutely perfect.
Let's pull out all stops and get Mrs. Clinton into jail as quickly as possible.
Dear Republican Leadership,
The only thing worse for this country than having Hillary Clinton as the next President, would be a rerun of Pres. Obama.. Everything possible should be done to thwart the election of Hillary Clinton as the next President.
The Washington Times says, "Hillary Clinton could face jail time as email scandal sparks legal challenges". Mrs. Clinton could face up to three years in prison per message if she is found to have broken her word and handled classified information on the secret account, one open records expert told The Washington Times.
This must absolutely be followed up. Having Hillary Clinton serve jail time would not be a guarantee of support loss from dyed in the wool Clinton supporters, but it would do a lot to disqualify her. If in addition, she could become ineligible for holding future government office because of her conviction on fraud and serving jail time, this would be absolutely perfect.
Let's pull out all stops and get Mrs. Clinton into jail as quickly as possible.
US/Iran War
Democratic/Socialistic Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has developed another ridiculous position!
He has commented on the nuclear weapon proliferation talks that have been going on between Iran and the US for two years. He poses the question, "What if these talks collapse?" An excellent question, because with no progress in two years, it is fairly clear that there will be no agreement or if there is an agreement, it will be completely favorable to Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.
Iranians are deceptive by nature, but I am willing to take them at their word on one point, which is they will wipe out the country of Israel and its population. It is also clear that they will likely use atomic weapon capability to develop a preeminent position in the Middle East. In so doing, they will also be indirectly encouraging all the other Middle Eastern countries to achieve atomic weapon capability. With that proliferation, not only is it likely that the Middle East will be blown the kingdom come, but there is an excellent chance that the US will see at least a couple of atomic blasts in its homeland.
So what does Bernie expect to do about it? He says, "What if the talks collapse? “I think these guys [Republicans] will be hot to trot for a war, and that frightens me very much,” Bernie told the Rev. Al Sharpton.
I hope Bernie is right on his thought that the Republicans will be hot to trot on a new war with Iran. That disturbs me also, but I'd rather have it now, as opposed to the earlier scenario of Middle East atomic weapon proliferation.
He has commented on the nuclear weapon proliferation talks that have been going on between Iran and the US for two years. He poses the question, "What if these talks collapse?" An excellent question, because with no progress in two years, it is fairly clear that there will be no agreement or if there is an agreement, it will be completely favorable to Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.
Iranians are deceptive by nature, but I am willing to take them at their word on one point, which is they will wipe out the country of Israel and its population. It is also clear that they will likely use atomic weapon capability to develop a preeminent position in the Middle East. In so doing, they will also be indirectly encouraging all the other Middle Eastern countries to achieve atomic weapon capability. With that proliferation, not only is it likely that the Middle East will be blown the kingdom come, but there is an excellent chance that the US will see at least a couple of atomic blasts in its homeland.
So what does Bernie expect to do about it? He says, "What if the talks collapse? “I think these guys [Republicans] will be hot to trot for a war, and that frightens me very much,” Bernie told the Rev. Al Sharpton.
I hope Bernie is right on his thought that the Republicans will be hot to trot on a new war with Iran. That disturbs me also, but I'd rather have it now, as opposed to the earlier scenario of Middle East atomic weapon proliferation.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Human Trafficking/Slavery
Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
I have read your latest Newsletter.
I also agree with your position that human trafficking for any purposes, including sexual exploitation, is slavery.
So what? This has been occurring for thousands of years, and I presume that Congress has already passed laws making it illegal in the US. The question is whether we are enforcing laws against human trafficking or whether we are ignoring enforcement, as we are in so many other areas, including illegal border crossings. When we make illegal immigrants citizens and give them benefits, why not do the same thing with sex traffickers. Do you want justification? The Democratic position will be that they need rehabilitation. We should open schools to teach against sex traffickers. Ridiculous? Yes, it is.
My point is that it seems to me that a US senator should not be interested in monkeying around with a situation where we already have laws to take care of it. Let's get on with the main issue, which is enforcing laws already on the books and taking to task those persons, including the particularly the President, who likes to make his own laws and ignore the ones made by you that he doesn't like.
Forget the human trafficking. Spend your time considering ways to impeach Pres. Obama and get him out of office in order to reduce the damage he will do in the next two years is much as possible.
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
I have read your latest Newsletter.
I also agree with your position that human trafficking for any purposes, including sexual exploitation, is slavery.
So what? This has been occurring for thousands of years, and I presume that Congress has already passed laws making it illegal in the US. The question is whether we are enforcing laws against human trafficking or whether we are ignoring enforcement, as we are in so many other areas, including illegal border crossings. When we make illegal immigrants citizens and give them benefits, why not do the same thing with sex traffickers. Do you want justification? The Democratic position will be that they need rehabilitation. We should open schools to teach against sex traffickers. Ridiculous? Yes, it is.
My point is that it seems to me that a US senator should not be interested in monkeying around with a situation where we already have laws to take care of it. Let's get on with the main issue, which is enforcing laws already on the books and taking to task those persons, including the particularly the President, who likes to make his own laws and ignore the ones made by you that he doesn't like.
Forget the human trafficking. Spend your time considering ways to impeach Pres. Obama and get him out of office in order to reduce the damage he will do in the next two years is much as possible.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Netanyahu on Iran
I listened to Netanyahu's speech on Iran. Too weak!
Netanyahu doesn't like the Obama administration's plan for Iran, which is to keep Iran's uranium isotope separation centrifuges in place, but with limited operation for the next 10 years. After that time, Iran is free to pursue any nuclear activity they wish. I agree with Netanyahu. It's not only a poor plan, it's lousy.
Netanyahu's plan is to dismantle Iran's uranium isotope separation facilities until such time as Iran agrees to give up its plan on aggression in the Middle East, eliminate support of terrorism, and stop claiming to destroy Israel. This is also a poor plan, for the simple reason that who is to judge how much aggression is aggression, what amount of terrorism can be supported without being recognized, and how long the Iranians can lie about not wanting to destroy Israel.
As long as we have atomic weapon proliferation, particularly in the Middle East, the world is in danger of catastrophic destruction. There's nothing that can be done about major countries now holding atomic weapons except to apply the "Mutually Assured Destruction Plan" (MAD). This says, "if you do it to me, I will do it to you and we're all dead".
However, the little guys in the Middle East work on a different philosophy, which is, "If we have to die to accomplish our purpose, so be it. We look forward to being with Allah in heaven". Christians also have a favorable opinion for heaven and they look forward to being there, when their lifespans are inevitable through disease or old-age, but most of them do not want to rush into it, which is dissimilar to young Muslim jihadists.
Bottom line: Wii must in perpetuity (forever) deny second-class nations, particularly Middle Eastern, from ever having or making atomic weapons.
Starting with Iran as a case in point, we must apply sanctions of trade and finance and military force if necessary to allow US inspectors access to all aspects of Iran's geography to ferret out supplies of uranium and thorium, any atomic piles to produce plutonium or similar fissionable materials, and any uranium isotope separation equipment, particularly centrifuges. The collection of such information must then be acted upon by removing all uranium and thorium sources to the United States, physically destroying all Ira it could purchase low-grade fissionable material for powerplant use from other major producing countries nian equipment for production of fissionable materials at any level of fission activity, and maintaining a contingent of American inspectors in Iran to assure that there is forever no rebuilding of atomic weapon capability. There should be no arguments to the contrary. If Iran has plans for atomic power, that can be accomplished by purchase of low-grade fissionable material for power use from presently producing countries.
Transfer of atomic weapons from other countries should be regarded as acts of war, with similar retribution. That is, confiscation of atomic weapons, application of various trade and financial sanctions, and military force if necessary. The first country of attention would be North Korea, but any major powers with atomic weapons, such as Russia and China would be included.
Forget the United Nations in this operation. It will be useless.
The US program will be an expense, but it can be limited to having the country of Iran pay for the destruction of its own equipment. The Iranians apparently have a dream of restoring the Persian Empire. We should basically have no objection to that program, providing it is done within the limits of peace; that is, through technical development and hard work, and not through a program of military aggression with or without atomic weapons.
Netanyahu doesn't like the Obama administration's plan for Iran, which is to keep Iran's uranium isotope separation centrifuges in place, but with limited operation for the next 10 years. After that time, Iran is free to pursue any nuclear activity they wish. I agree with Netanyahu. It's not only a poor plan, it's lousy.
Netanyahu's plan is to dismantle Iran's uranium isotope separation facilities until such time as Iran agrees to give up its plan on aggression in the Middle East, eliminate support of terrorism, and stop claiming to destroy Israel. This is also a poor plan, for the simple reason that who is to judge how much aggression is aggression, what amount of terrorism can be supported without being recognized, and how long the Iranians can lie about not wanting to destroy Israel.
As long as we have atomic weapon proliferation, particularly in the Middle East, the world is in danger of catastrophic destruction. There's nothing that can be done about major countries now holding atomic weapons except to apply the "Mutually Assured Destruction Plan" (MAD). This says, "if you do it to me, I will do it to you and we're all dead".
However, the little guys in the Middle East work on a different philosophy, which is, "If we have to die to accomplish our purpose, so be it. We look forward to being with Allah in heaven". Christians also have a favorable opinion for heaven and they look forward to being there, when their lifespans are inevitable through disease or old-age, but most of them do not want to rush into it, which is dissimilar to young Muslim jihadists.
Bottom line: Wii must in perpetuity (forever) deny second-class nations, particularly Middle Eastern, from ever having or making atomic weapons.
Starting with Iran as a case in point, we must apply sanctions of trade and finance and military force if necessary to allow US inspectors access to all aspects of Iran's geography to ferret out supplies of uranium and thorium, any atomic piles to produce plutonium or similar fissionable materials, and any uranium isotope separation equipment, particularly centrifuges. The collection of such information must then be acted upon by removing all uranium and thorium sources to the United States, physically destroying all Ira it could purchase low-grade fissionable material for powerplant use from other major producing countries nian equipment for production of fissionable materials at any level of fission activity, and maintaining a contingent of American inspectors in Iran to assure that there is forever no rebuilding of atomic weapon capability. There should be no arguments to the contrary. If Iran has plans for atomic power, that can be accomplished by purchase of low-grade fissionable material for power use from presently producing countries.
Transfer of atomic weapons from other countries should be regarded as acts of war, with similar retribution. That is, confiscation of atomic weapons, application of various trade and financial sanctions, and military force if necessary. The first country of attention would be North Korea, but any major powers with atomic weapons, such as Russia and China would be included.
Forget the United Nations in this operation. It will be useless.
The US program will be an expense, but it can be limited to having the country of Iran pay for the destruction of its own equipment. The Iranians apparently have a dream of restoring the Persian Empire. We should basically have no objection to that program, providing it is done within the limits of peace; that is, through technical development and hard work, and not through a program of military aggression with or without atomic weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
