Over 50% of publicly traded United States corporations and 60% of the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware.
Why so?
Delaware charges no income tax on corporations not operating within the state, so taking advantage of Delaware's other benefits does not result in a state income tax cost. In general, the state is viewed as a positive location for corporate tax purposes because favorable laws of incorporation allow companies to minimize the corporate expenditures (achieved through legal standardization of corporate legal processes), creating a nucleus in Delaware with operating companies often in other states.
Simple answer: They save money, leading to higher profit for the owners of the company, through stockholders such as you and me
Unfair? Only if you are not part of any of the US financial system. For example, if you don't only individual stocks or bonds, if you do not have a 401(k), if you do not have a standard IRA or a Roth, if you have no benefit from the Teachers Retirement Union or Railroad Retirement Plan. In other words, the only income you have is from the sweat of your brow and if you can't make it financially through that, the federal government gives you money to maintain a standard of living. The money grants from the federal government are from you and me, who do have retirement incomes. We worked for that through many years. Is it fair now that we should support people who did not properly plan for their retirement? This United States of America was founded on the basis of a land of opportunity for hard-working people, who could properly control their assets, and not be dumping money into the coffers of King James through taxes.
Howeve, r we have developed an unfair system of double taxation for corporations. The IRS taxes corporations on their profits and then again taxes the stockholders, such as you and me, on any remaining profits. That's very simply double taxation; taxing not only the golden goose but also the eggs of the golden goose.
You and I and the corporations themselves can do essentially nothing to eliminate unreasonable double taxation. However, the corporation still have an obligation to maximize profit for your and my benefits. Incorporation in Delaware is one of the standard ways to do this.
Why all this preamble?
It is really based on Socialistic Senator Bernie Sanders latest attack on corporations. His latest attack is on the profits from overseas corporations. Various US corporations have subsidiaries for sales and manufacturing in various countries of the world. If they operate efficiently, they make a profit which can subsequently be used for expanding the foreign physical facilities to generate even more profit. Since timing of reinvestment and construction is of significance, most corporations retain their foreign generated profits in an offshore facility, such as the Cayman Islands, until such time as the funds can be efficiently used.
Bernie Sanders doesn't like this. He doesn't want those corporate profits held for foreign reentry reinvestment. He wants to immediately apply the standard corporate tax which is again the manifestation of double taxation.
Why would he do this? Very simple. As a tax-and-spend liberal for redistribution of wealth. He wants money in his coffers to spend in any way that he will subsequently think is appropriate; whether indulging in a program of carbon tax to generate even more funds for his eventual squandering on people who have never been allowed to understand the realities of individual responsibility. When he does this, it puts him in a position of extreme power. He then tells the masses what they must do, and he'll dole out a little bread along the way in order to pacify them.
Bernie has latched onto a new term for his latest corporate attack. That is: "The Ugland House". He calls it a scam, but it is not a scam. It is simply another way for corporations to handle foreign profits in the same way that incorporation in the state of Delaware efficiently handles domestic profits. The Ugland House in the Cayman Islands is the registered home of 18,000 corporations holding profits from foreign operations for eventual reinvestment.
What is there a scam about this? The corporations hold their profits there until each of them find in opportunity for an appropriate reinvestment. Congress has previously encouraged foreign investment through such operation of holding money outside the United States where it will be delayed for taxation until such time as it is returned to the United States. Bernie Sanders doesn't like this. He wants to change congressional rules so that the IRS can use double taxation now, rather than sometime in the future.
Bernie also runs a poll. He asks whether corporations should pay their fair share of income tax. Responders will always say "yes" to that question, on the assumption that if such corporate opportunities as the Ugland House is eliminated, it will immediately increase the tax revenue for the federal government and expectedly reduce taxes for the middle class. He doesn't say anything about the unfair aspect of double taxation, nor does he say anything about long-term investment opportunities in order to develop corporate positions for generating increased profit. In short, he is deceptive, deceptive, deceptive. The more people we have like him in our federal government; not only the Legislature but the Administration, the quicker we will see this country decline into a state of economic oblivion.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Texas Lieut. Gov. Dan Patrick's Legislature
That is primarily of interest to Texas residents.
Open Email to Lieut. Gov. Dan Patrick:
Dear Lt. Gov.
Your latest newsletter concentrated on the recently passed budget by the Texas Legislature, which in your judgment has made wonderful progress.
I completely disagree for the following reasons:
While the legislature substantially reduced business and property taxes, the gain was essentially blown away by subsequent increases for social engineering, which ultimately led to a 5% budget increase.
Here's the way the legislature now plans to fritter away state revenues through social engineering:
it fully funds public education plus an additional $1.5B to increase the basic allotment formula from $5,040 to $5,134 in 2016 and $5,140 in 2017, improves equity and provides funding for more school facilities. Reforms education by providing $60M for math and reading training for K-3 teachers. Adds $25M for career counseling for middle school students.
That's all wrong. It is not the responsibility of the state government to educate its people nor use state funds for developing systems and grants which accomplish the same thing. The responsibility for education lies with the populace. It achieves its education through its own expenditure of personal funds, in cooperation with private educational institutions, and the support of various private trusts. The state should be out of the education business. Each municipality continues its educational programs through a school board, which hires qualified teachers usually funded by local property taxes. The responsibility for qualifying for a job lies within the individuals, not within the state to grant funds to make individuals qualified.
Similarly, the budge adds $60M for Graduate Medical Education to provide sufficient funding for every Texas medical school graduate to have a residency in Texas. It is the responsibility of hospitals to provide for facilities and funding for residency of qualifying medical school graduates. Hospitals do so through their normal budgetary process, wherein they obtain work from the medical school graduate residents.
Increasing mental health funding by $258.8 million is too nebulous. Are we short of psychiatric retention facilities to incur individuals dangerous to our society? If so, let's say so. Otherwise, I will consider it an expense down another rathole.
With respect to women's health, there is no need for any state funding. If women have health problems, they go to the doctor, the same as men, and children. If they are unable to afford it, they are declared indigent and receive the benefits of welfare, which should have nothing to do with a $50 million allocation for "women's health".
Conversely, I agree with an $811 million increase for border security. It is the federal government's responsibility to do that job, but the record shows that they have not and will not act to preserve the rule of law. This still leaves the problem wide open and we will have to do our best to fill the gap.
I also agree with the expenditure for highway construction and improvement. I generally avoid or the socialistic aspect of a highway system, but it is one of the fewer aspects of socialism that we need to accept for the benefit of the greater good. The previous record of the socialistic highway system has shown that it is not detrimental to the welfare and development of the people.
Open Email to Lieut. Gov. Dan Patrick:
Dear Lt. Gov.
Your latest newsletter concentrated on the recently passed budget by the Texas Legislature, which in your judgment has made wonderful progress.
I completely disagree for the following reasons:
While the legislature substantially reduced business and property taxes, the gain was essentially blown away by subsequent increases for social engineering, which ultimately led to a 5% budget increase.
Here's the way the legislature now plans to fritter away state revenues through social engineering:
it fully funds public education plus an additional $1.5B to increase the basic allotment formula from $5,040 to $5,134 in 2016 and $5,140 in 2017, improves equity and provides funding for more school facilities. Reforms education by providing $60M for math and reading training for K-3 teachers. Adds $25M for career counseling for middle school students.
That's all wrong. It is not the responsibility of the state government to educate its people nor use state funds for developing systems and grants which accomplish the same thing. The responsibility for education lies with the populace. It achieves its education through its own expenditure of personal funds, in cooperation with private educational institutions, and the support of various private trusts. The state should be out of the education business. Each municipality continues its educational programs through a school board, which hires qualified teachers usually funded by local property taxes. The responsibility for qualifying for a job lies within the individuals, not within the state to grant funds to make individuals qualified.
Similarly, the budge adds $60M for Graduate Medical Education to provide sufficient funding for every Texas medical school graduate to have a residency in Texas. It is the responsibility of hospitals to provide for facilities and funding for residency of qualifying medical school graduates. Hospitals do so through their normal budgetary process, wherein they obtain work from the medical school graduate residents.
Increasing mental health funding by $258.8 million is too nebulous. Are we short of psychiatric retention facilities to incur individuals dangerous to our society? If so, let's say so. Otherwise, I will consider it an expense down another rathole.
With respect to women's health, there is no need for any state funding. If women have health problems, they go to the doctor, the same as men, and children. If they are unable to afford it, they are declared indigent and receive the benefits of welfare, which should have nothing to do with a $50 million allocation for "women's health".
Conversely, I agree with an $811 million increase for border security. It is the federal government's responsibility to do that job, but the record shows that they have not and will not act to preserve the rule of law. This still leaves the problem wide open and we will have to do our best to fill the gap.
I also agree with the expenditure for highway construction and improvement. I generally avoid or the socialistic aspect of a highway system, but it is one of the fewer aspects of socialism that we need to accept for the benefit of the greater good. The previous record of the socialistic highway system has shown that it is not detrimental to the welfare and development of the people.
New Attorney Cheryl
Open Email to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Dear Sen. McConnell,
According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama is ranting and raving about the Senate delay in confirming Loretta Lynch as the new Attorney General.
You are on the right track, but we need to do more. We do not need to delay her confirmation as Attorney General. We need to give her a thumbs down; i.e. never approve her.
Why? Because she is not qualified for the job. She is not qualified, because she is a black woman.
The job of a Attorney General is tough. It requires enforcing the laws of the United States passed by the United States Congress. That Involves putting people in jail, and it also involves putting people in jail based upon some consideration of their offenses, since the Justice Department has limited capability to pursue every federal law breaker in the US. But women by nature are nurturers. This means in performing the duties of Attorney General, Loretta Lynch is pretty much guaranteed to go easy on lawbreakers; giving lighter sentences, pursuing only those cases that have political import, etc.. That will not fulfill the requirements of the United States as a government based upon the rule of law
As a black woman, she is loaded with additional baggage. All of the previous history of the United States in the form of black misstreatments are on her back. She would obviously show preference for lighter sentences and reduced penalties for any black lawbreakers.
These two things automatically disqualify her as a potential upholder of the basic law of the land. She needs to be turned down as a potential candidate for Attorney General.. We need a white man with male characteristics suitable for the potential difficulties of the job. He must also have shown a record of being in any way unbiased toward race, so that he gives equal judgment to blacks, whites yellows, etc. I'm sure there are many such persons who can qualify for this job. Go find one.
Dear Sen. McConnell,
According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama is ranting and raving about the Senate delay in confirming Loretta Lynch as the new Attorney General.
You are on the right track, but we need to do more. We do not need to delay her confirmation as Attorney General. We need to give her a thumbs down; i.e. never approve her.
Why? Because she is not qualified for the job. She is not qualified, because she is a black woman.
The job of a Attorney General is tough. It requires enforcing the laws of the United States passed by the United States Congress. That Involves putting people in jail, and it also involves putting people in jail based upon some consideration of their offenses, since the Justice Department has limited capability to pursue every federal law breaker in the US. But women by nature are nurturers. This means in performing the duties of Attorney General, Loretta Lynch is pretty much guaranteed to go easy on lawbreakers; giving lighter sentences, pursuing only those cases that have political import, etc.. That will not fulfill the requirements of the United States as a government based upon the rule of law
As a black woman, she is loaded with additional baggage. All of the previous history of the United States in the form of black misstreatments are on her back. She would obviously show preference for lighter sentences and reduced penalties for any black lawbreakers.
These two things automatically disqualify her as a potential upholder of the basic law of the land. She needs to be turned down as a potential candidate for Attorney General.. We need a white man with male characteristics suitable for the potential difficulties of the job. He must also have shown a record of being in any way unbiased toward race, so that he gives equal judgment to blacks, whites yellows, etc. I'm sure there are many such persons who can qualify for this job. Go find one.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Pres. Obama is a Denier
The Washington Times quotes Pres. Obama as saying, "I am not a tax and spend liberal."
Most murderers in penal institutions say they are not murderers, but they are.
We don't judge people on what they say they stand for. We judge them on what they do.
Most murderers in penal institutions say they are not murderers, but they are.
We don't judge people on what they say they stand for. We judge them on what they do.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Environmentalism Again Gone Awry
California is in a drought stage. Gov. Jerry Brown wants to conserve water through restrictions on city inhabitants by letting the lawns dry up and cutting personal showers.
The fact is that 40% of California fresh water is running right into the Pacific Ocean. Why so? Simple answer. California will not build dams and reservoirs to collect the water for city use. Why so? Because it might endanger some fish species. Ridiculous? Right! Most reasonable people would think that humans should have priority for water, for washing cars, watering lawns, and taking showers even if a few fish may be inconvenienced.
This is another example of environmentalism gone awry. This fits in with the snail darter and the prairie chicken. I can hardly wait for someone to take the Endangered Species Act all the way to the Supreme Court, where it should be declared unconstitutional; not being a part of the original Constitution nor any of its amendments.
The fact is that 40% of California fresh water is running right into the Pacific Ocean. Why so? Simple answer. California will not build dams and reservoirs to collect the water for city use. Why so? Because it might endanger some fish species. Ridiculous? Right! Most reasonable people would think that humans should have priority for water, for washing cars, watering lawns, and taking showers even if a few fish may be inconvenienced.
This is another example of environmentalism gone awry. This fits in with the snail darter and the prairie chicken. I can hardly wait for someone to take the Endangered Species Act all the way to the Supreme Court, where it should be declared unconstitutional; not being a part of the original Constitution nor any of its amendments.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Unnecessary Convention to Control Government Spending
The Washington Times reports that there is a movement to use a Constitutional Convention to support a program which would rein in excessive government spending. This would more properly be called a Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention.
The problem, with a Constitutional Convention called for by the states is that it opens a process by which any issue can be introduced for Constitutional Amendment; it would not be limited to the reigning in of excessive government spending. Democrats/Socialists would love this procedure, since it would be an open door to modify the Constitution in any number of ways, with the only provision that there would be enough states to agree. The traditional way to establish a constitutional amendment is through Congress and this has worked satisfactorily in the past.
In addition, let's also remember that the voters already have control of government spending through Congress through the simple electoral process. Voters simply need to address the fact that if they asked a Congressional representatives to vote positively on every porkbarrel spending program, it will break the back of the country. If the voters also see that their Congressional representatives are not voting to curtail government spending, the voters can then vote out of office the non-cooperating legislator.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention.
The problem, with a Constitutional Convention called for by the states is that it opens a process by which any issue can be introduced for Constitutional Amendment; it would not be limited to the reigning in of excessive government spending. Democrats/Socialists would love this procedure, since it would be an open door to modify the Constitution in any number of ways, with the only provision that there would be enough states to agree. The traditional way to establish a constitutional amendment is through Congress and this has worked satisfactorily in the past.
In addition, let's also remember that the voters already have control of government spending through Congress through the simple electoral process. Voters simply need to address the fact that if they asked a Congressional representatives to vote positively on every porkbarrel spending program, it will break the back of the country. If the voters also see that their Congressional representatives are not voting to curtail government spending, the voters can then vote out of office the non-cooperating legislator.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Iran As a New Entry to the Nuclear Club
The Washington Times says, "Obama takes victory lap on 'historic' nuclear deal with Iran".
Obama is wrong and that Netanyahu is right.
As long as Iran is permitted to have the physical facilities to prepare fissionable raw material for an atomic bomb. It will eventually do so.
Mined uranium consists of two forms. The form in very low concentration is fissionable; that is it can be used to make an atomic bomb. The present state of the art is to separate the two forms by use of a centrifuge. It is a very difficult process to obtain significant quantities of the fissionable U-235. Many hundreds of centrifuges need to operate for long periods of time, but eventually a sufficient quantity of U-235 can be obtained to make an atomic bomb. Iran has had many hundreds of centrifuges operating for at least two years.
The present agreement with Iran allows them to continue having and using centrifuges. This automatically guarantees an eventual ability to produce an atomic bomb.
We understand that following the agreement Obama refers to, there was celebration in the streets of Tehran, because Iran will now be able to eventually become a world power based upon its atomic capability and threat of its use.
Obama is wrong and that Netanyahu is right.
As long as Iran is permitted to have the physical facilities to prepare fissionable raw material for an atomic bomb. It will eventually do so.
Mined uranium consists of two forms. The form in very low concentration is fissionable; that is it can be used to make an atomic bomb. The present state of the art is to separate the two forms by use of a centrifuge. It is a very difficult process to obtain significant quantities of the fissionable U-235. Many hundreds of centrifuges need to operate for long periods of time, but eventually a sufficient quantity of U-235 can be obtained to make an atomic bomb. Iran has had many hundreds of centrifuges operating for at least two years.
The present agreement with Iran allows them to continue having and using centrifuges. This automatically guarantees an eventual ability to produce an atomic bomb.
We understand that following the agreement Obama refers to, there was celebration in the streets of Tehran, because Iran will now be able to eventually become a world power based upon its atomic capability and threat of its use.
More Illegal Immigrants Under Executive Order
The Washington Times says a new State Department and Department of Homeland Security Program will fly immigrant children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to their parents in the U.S. for free. Any permanent US resident, parolee or illegal immigrant granted or in the process of being granted a work permit under President Barack Obama’s executive order or his deferred action policy, who have children under age 21 living in Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador can apply for the program. If the application is approved, the child will be granted special refugee status and flown to the U.S. to receive “resettlement assistance” and will be eligible for taxpayer benefits. If the child has children of their own under 21 they can come into the U.S. too, along with parents of the child who is married to the applicant.
The program was created in response to a surge of unaccompanied Central American children making the perilous trek to illegally cross the U.S. border that began last summer.
I may be a little dense, but I don't see that the surge of unaccompanied Central American children across the border last summer, gives any justification for bringing in more children at taxpayer expense.
In addition, what has the Department of Homeland Security got to do with bringing in more illegal immigrant children from Central America. I suspect that since it's all on the taxpayer dime, the State Department had to tie in with the Department of Homeland Security to get sufficient obtuse funding for the program.
Finally, the federal government, through Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution,does have the power to control immigration and the vesting of citizenship in aliens (naturalization). Congressional laws passed in this regard are constitutional and the application is the responsibility of the Executive Branch (Obama Administration). If the Executive Branch is not properly enforcing the laws passed by Congress, it is Congress's responsibility to either modify the laws making it more clear concerning the President's responsibility. If the president is then not properly enforcing the laws, it is Congress's responsibility to impeach him. This is equivalent to a Chief Executive Officer in a corporation following the requirements of its Board of Directors. If the CEO is a maverick, he is discharged.
Look at the attachment for all federal government responsibilities according to the Constitution and Amendments.
The program was created in response to a surge of unaccompanied Central American children making the perilous trek to illegally cross the U.S. border that began last summer.
I may be a little dense, but I don't see that the surge of unaccompanied Central American children across the border last summer, gives any justification for bringing in more children at taxpayer expense.
In addition, what has the Department of Homeland Security got to do with bringing in more illegal immigrant children from Central America. I suspect that since it's all on the taxpayer dime, the State Department had to tie in with the Department of Homeland Security to get sufficient obtuse funding for the program.
Finally, the federal government, through Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution,does have the power to control immigration and the vesting of citizenship in aliens (naturalization). Congressional laws passed in this regard are constitutional and the application is the responsibility of the Executive Branch (Obama Administration). If the Executive Branch is not properly enforcing the laws passed by Congress, it is Congress's responsibility to either modify the laws making it more clear concerning the President's responsibility. If the president is then not properly enforcing the laws, it is Congress's responsibility to impeach him. This is equivalent to a Chief Executive Officer in a corporation following the requirements of its Board of Directors. If the CEO is a maverick, he is discharged.
Look at the attachment for all federal government responsibilities according to the Constitution and Amendments.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Good Progress in the Republican Senate
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.
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.
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.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Bernie Sanders and Corporate Income Tax
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a dyed in the wool socialist. He believes in redistribution of wealth on the same basis as Obama. He does not believe in the land of opportunity and the need for hard work in order to exercise the opportunities. He further castigates companies that operate profitably making money for their stockholders, one of which is me, and he gives no credence to the fact that profitable companies supply goods and services to the general public, which would be missing without those companies. He continues to be on a campaign to demonize profitable companies. His latest take in his newsletter is to criticize companies for holding profits which they made from overseas sales in foreign countries rather than return the profits to the US, where they can be taxed. In his latest newsletter, this is what he had to say:
“Instead of sheltering profits in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens, the largest corporations in this country must pay their fair share of taxes so that our country has the revenue we need to rebuild America and reduce the deficit,” Bernie said. "At a time when corporations are making record-breaking profits, while the middle class is disappearing and senior poverty is on the rise, the last thing we should be doing is giving huge tax breaks to profitable corporations that don’t need it.” The Washington Times says that Bernie will soon reintroduce legislation to crack down on corporate tax avoidance by making sure that profits shifted to offshore tax haven subsidiaries are taxed at the top U.S. corporate tax rate.
Most corporations in the US are in business to make a profit for their owners, generally shareholders of stock. They do this by providing goods and services to the market (general public) at competitive prices. This requires efficiency in their production and marketing operations, which includes the proper handling of their finances. For this reason, all major corporations have a Chief Financial Officer to oversee the continuing need to make a profit. Without a profit, a company goes bankrupt, which means it is no longer in business and no longer able to supply goods and services to the general public.
In their operation, corporations also have an obligation to pay their federal taxes, since they are organized under US government rules for corporations. That obligation only goes so far as to fulfill the requirements of tax laws. Any excess taxes which they pay, deprive the owners of their share of profits and also reduces the corporations ability to accumulate wealth for reinvestment in new production and marketing facilities.
Forcing corporations to pay taxes on foreign generated profits before return of those profits to the United States has some advantage to US federal government revenue, but not as much as anticipated. The stockholders of the corporations obtain a portion of the profits as dividends, on which they must pay federal income tax through their Forms 1040. If the federal government takes a big chunk of taxes out of overseas generated profits, there is less money available for stockholders, in the form of dividends, and less taxes paid by those stockholders through their Forms 1040. As mentioned earlier, this also jeopardizes the corporations position in being able to expand its manufacturing and marketing facilities. This limitation jeopardizes the health of US corporations, who have to compete with foreign-based corporations not subject to the same US tax rules.
The bottom line is that we need the US corporate tax provision requiring payment of taxes on foreign generated profits only when those profits are repatriated to the US. We need it to keep our corporations healthy and continuing to do business to supply us with the ancillary goods and services they generate.
Bernie Sanders is either shortsighted in not recognizing the complete picture as indicated above, or as consistent with the operations of most socialists, he distorts the picture to generate jealousy within the voting public using the false presumption that they are not obtaining their share of goods, services and handouts from the federal government. Bernie Sanders and people like him are a danger to our society.
“Instead of sheltering profits in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens, the largest corporations in this country must pay their fair share of taxes so that our country has the revenue we need to rebuild America and reduce the deficit,” Bernie said. "At a time when corporations are making record-breaking profits, while the middle class is disappearing and senior poverty is on the rise, the last thing we should be doing is giving huge tax breaks to profitable corporations that don’t need it.” The Washington Times says that Bernie will soon reintroduce legislation to crack down on corporate tax avoidance by making sure that profits shifted to offshore tax haven subsidiaries are taxed at the top U.S. corporate tax rate.
Most corporations in the US are in business to make a profit for their owners, generally shareholders of stock. They do this by providing goods and services to the market (general public) at competitive prices. This requires efficiency in their production and marketing operations, which includes the proper handling of their finances. For this reason, all major corporations have a Chief Financial Officer to oversee the continuing need to make a profit. Without a profit, a company goes bankrupt, which means it is no longer in business and no longer able to supply goods and services to the general public.
In their operation, corporations also have an obligation to pay their federal taxes, since they are organized under US government rules for corporations. That obligation only goes so far as to fulfill the requirements of tax laws. Any excess taxes which they pay, deprive the owners of their share of profits and also reduces the corporations ability to accumulate wealth for reinvestment in new production and marketing facilities.
Forcing corporations to pay taxes on foreign generated profits before return of those profits to the United States has some advantage to US federal government revenue, but not as much as anticipated. The stockholders of the corporations obtain a portion of the profits as dividends, on which they must pay federal income tax through their Forms 1040. If the federal government takes a big chunk of taxes out of overseas generated profits, there is less money available for stockholders, in the form of dividends, and less taxes paid by those stockholders through their Forms 1040. As mentioned earlier, this also jeopardizes the corporations position in being able to expand its manufacturing and marketing facilities. This limitation jeopardizes the health of US corporations, who have to compete with foreign-based corporations not subject to the same US tax rules.
The bottom line is that we need the US corporate tax provision requiring payment of taxes on foreign generated profits only when those profits are repatriated to the US. We need it to keep our corporations healthy and continuing to do business to supply us with the ancillary goods and services they generate.
Bernie Sanders is either shortsighted in not recognizing the complete picture as indicated above, or as consistent with the operations of most socialists, he distorts the picture to generate jealousy within the voting public using the false presumption that they are not obtaining their share of goods, services and handouts from the federal government. Bernie Sanders and people like him are a danger to our society.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Retaliation Following Warning
Open Email to Sen. Ted Cruz:
Dear Sen. Cruz,
The Washington Times reports that you warned Pres. Obama to stop spending on amnesty plans for illegal immigrants.
Congratulations. By your statement, you are obviously opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants and the spending of federal funds thereon.
However, I am somewhat concerned about your use of the term "warning", which is similar to "threat", and always implies that there will be some retaliation if the initial action is carried out.
Before the federal government intervened with children's privacy through the schools, the boys used to have a standard procedure for resolving conflicts. One of the contestants would put a wood chip on his shoulder and encourage the other contestant to knock it off. The implication was clear that if the chip was knocked off the shoulder, a physical fight would ensue. Clear-cut. If you do so and so, I will do so and so in retaliation.
Which brings us to your challenge. The likelihood is that Pres.
Obama will knock the chip off the shoulder by ignoring anything said by a federal judge or by you or other members of Congress. What then do you plan to do about it? What is your retaliation? If you don't have a specific retaliation in mind, you should not have made the challenge. If you have a specific retaliation in mind, why keep it secret? Let us all hear what it is.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
The Washington Times reports that you warned Pres. Obama to stop spending on amnesty plans for illegal immigrants.
Congratulations. By your statement, you are obviously opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants and the spending of federal funds thereon.
However, I am somewhat concerned about your use of the term "warning", which is similar to "threat", and always implies that there will be some retaliation if the initial action is carried out.
Before the federal government intervened with children's privacy through the schools, the boys used to have a standard procedure for resolving conflicts. One of the contestants would put a wood chip on his shoulder and encourage the other contestant to knock it off. The implication was clear that if the chip was knocked off the shoulder, a physical fight would ensue. Clear-cut. If you do so and so, I will do so and so in retaliation.
Which brings us to your challenge. The likelihood is that Pres.
Obama will knock the chip off the shoulder by ignoring anything said by a federal judge or by you or other members of Congress. What then do you plan to do about it? What is your retaliation? If you don't have a specific retaliation in mind, you should not have made the challenge. If you have a specific retaliation in mind, why keep it secret? Let us all hear what it is.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
billionaires and Average Per Capita Income
Open email to Sen. Bernie Sanders:
Dear Sen. Sanders,
I have read your recent newsletter on US billionaires. You obviously don't like them, and you would presumably eliminate them by distributing their wealth among the general public. It is not clear to me whether you have a purely socialistic interest in establishing wealth equalization or whether you are using this approach to generate jealousy in the general public and through that obtain more votes for your reelection.
Perhaps some data will convince you that an emotional approach is many times inconsistent with the facts.
There are 187 countries for which annual per capita incomes are listed. This is a little more data than can be easily handled, so I decided to take the first five countries in each of the four quartiles.
In the first quartile, the average annual per capita income ranged from $70,000 to $145,000. The number of billionaires in the five countries was 45.
In the second quartile, the average annual per capita income was in the $10,000 range. The number of billionaires in the five countries was 53.
In the third quartile, the average annual per capita income ranged from $2000 to $3000. The number of billionaires in the five countries was 13.
In the fourth quartile, the average annual per capita income range from $600 to $900. The number of billionaires in the five country was zero.
I don't know what you will get out of this, but to me the message is clear. The more billionaires you have in a country, the greater is the average per capita annual income. In other words, the presence of billionaires in a country is favorable to the financial status of the average inhabitant. I will not speculate on whether the country has made the billionaires or the billionaires have improved the country. I can only say we need more billionaires to improve the financial status of the average person.
See the attachment for more detail.
Dear Sen. Sanders,
I have read your recent newsletter on US billionaires. You obviously don't like them, and you would presumably eliminate them by distributing their wealth among the general public. It is not clear to me whether you have a purely socialistic interest in establishing wealth equalization or whether you are using this approach to generate jealousy in the general public and through that obtain more votes for your reelection.
Perhaps some data will convince you that an emotional approach is many times inconsistent with the facts.
There are 187 countries for which annual per capita incomes are listed. This is a little more data than can be easily handled, so I decided to take the first five countries in each of the four quartiles.
In the first quartile, the average annual per capita income ranged from $70,000 to $145,000. The number of billionaires in the five countries was 45.
In the second quartile, the average annual per capita income was in the $10,000 range. The number of billionaires in the five countries was 53.
In the third quartile, the average annual per capita income ranged from $2000 to $3000. The number of billionaires in the five countries was 13.
In the fourth quartile, the average annual per capita income range from $600 to $900. The number of billionaires in the five country was zero.
I don't know what you will get out of this, but to me the message is clear. The more billionaires you have in a country, the greater is the average per capita annual income. In other words, the presence of billionaires in a country is favorable to the financial status of the average inhabitant. I will not speculate on whether the country has made the billionaires or the billionaires have improved the country. I can only say we need more billionaires to improve the financial status of the average person.
See the attachment for more detail.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Murder versus War
In discussion about ISIS, the media is using a wrong terminology. The problem with using a wrong terminology is that it confuses the issue.
The media claims that ISIS is murdering Americans. Not true. ISIS is killing Americans.
The term "murder" is usually reserved for situations where an individual or a small number of people in a disorganized manner kill one or more other people. For example, the Manson killings were acts of murder.
However, if a large number of people are either involved directly or indirectly in the killing of unknown other people, this is an act of war, in which an "enemy" is killing another "enemy". In no way, is this action a matter of murder.
In the case of ISIS, the killers are killing Americans, because they are at war with America. Any killing that ISIS members do are a result of enemy action. There is no murder involved.
Calling the deaths of Americans at the hands of ISIS acts of murder, accidentally or intentionally hides the fact that ISIS is at war with America. America can then not respond equally in defending itself as a war enemy.
For example, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 6, 1941. That action by Japanese aircraft killed many Americans and destroyed many American ships. America recognized the Japanese action as an act of war and immediately responded with similar acts of war. The the complete war was then on and America was successful in winning it. If the Americans had regarded the Japanese attack as acts of murder, there would have been no basis for organized retaliation; no war; and you can guess the outcome.
ISIS by its actions has demonstrated that it is at war with America. America needs to recognize this activation of war by I SIS and respond equivocally, with the intention of defeating the enemy and thereby winning the war. Anything less, reduces all future action to skirmishes, such as US border control agents periodically have with drug dealers.
The media claims that ISIS is murdering Americans. Not true. ISIS is killing Americans.
The term "murder" is usually reserved for situations where an individual or a small number of people in a disorganized manner kill one or more other people. For example, the Manson killings were acts of murder.
However, if a large number of people are either involved directly or indirectly in the killing of unknown other people, this is an act of war, in which an "enemy" is killing another "enemy". In no way, is this action a matter of murder.
In the case of ISIS, the killers are killing Americans, because they are at war with America. Any killing that ISIS members do are a result of enemy action. There is no murder involved.
Calling the deaths of Americans at the hands of ISIS acts of murder, accidentally or intentionally hides the fact that ISIS is at war with America. America can then not respond equally in defending itself as a war enemy.
For example, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 6, 1941. That action by Japanese aircraft killed many Americans and destroyed many American ships. America recognized the Japanese action as an act of war and immediately responded with similar acts of war. The the complete war was then on and America was successful in winning it. If the Americans had regarded the Japanese attack as acts of murder, there would have been no basis for organized retaliation; no war; and you can guess the outcome.
ISIS by its actions has demonstrated that it is at war with America. America needs to recognize this activation of war by I SIS and respond equivocally, with the intention of defeating the enemy and thereby winning the war. Anything less, reduces all future action to skirmishes, such as US border control agents periodically have with drug dealers.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Terrorism versus Global Warming
There was a discussion on Fox News this morning concerning the President's comments on terrorism. He is reported to have said that terrorism is overblown. There are more people who will die from global warming than from terrorism.
This is the result of a President voted into office by an electorate with an unrealistic attitude toward hope and change. As human beings, almost all of us have a positive attitude with the hope that somehow things will be better. However, there is also a practical side of human nature, which is realism or an ability to face facts. Those persons who believe strongly in a future based on hope with an inability to recognize existing facts are candidates for psychoanalysis, depending upon the degree to which they live in a non-real world. I don't claim that Pres. Obama has gone so far that he needs psychoanalysis, but his borderline position with respect to recognizing facts as opposed to his emotional feeling of hope have done significant damage to our country.
More specifically, the President could have said that more people would be killed by an asteroid hitting Earth or a severe outbreak of bubonic plague than will be killed by terrorists. If he had done so, it would be more obvious that he did not understand reality. The point being that terrorism is here and most of us can clearly recognize it, whereas an asteroid or a bubonic plague effect is so remote as to not be worth considering. However, he chose to make the comparison with global warming, presumably on the basis that 50% of the general public believe that global warming is real. That's rather a high number but taken in its proper context it is still insignificant with respect to reality. Terrorism is here and 100% factual, probably recognized by 99% of the voting public.
If Pres. Obama wants to relate the factual existence of terrorism to a factual existence of global warming. He has a lot more work to do. He has already accomplished much by convincing 50% of the public of global warming reality but that is still nowhere near 99%.
This is the result of a President voted into office by an electorate with an unrealistic attitude toward hope and change. As human beings, almost all of us have a positive attitude with the hope that somehow things will be better. However, there is also a practical side of human nature, which is realism or an ability to face facts. Those persons who believe strongly in a future based on hope with an inability to recognize existing facts are candidates for psychoanalysis, depending upon the degree to which they live in a non-real world. I don't claim that Pres. Obama has gone so far that he needs psychoanalysis, but his borderline position with respect to recognizing facts as opposed to his emotional feeling of hope have done significant damage to our country.
More specifically, the President could have said that more people would be killed by an asteroid hitting Earth or a severe outbreak of bubonic plague than will be killed by terrorists. If he had done so, it would be more obvious that he did not understand reality. The point being that terrorism is here and most of us can clearly recognize it, whereas an asteroid or a bubonic plague effect is so remote as to not be worth considering. However, he chose to make the comparison with global warming, presumably on the basis that 50% of the general public believe that global warming is real. That's rather a high number but taken in its proper context it is still insignificant with respect to reality. Terrorism is here and 100% factual, probably recognized by 99% of the voting public.
If Pres. Obama wants to relate the factual existence of terrorism to a factual existence of global warming. He has a lot more work to do. He has already accomplished much by convincing 50% of the public of global warming reality but that is still nowhere near 99%.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Ebola and Quarantine
Open Email to Sen. Cruz,
Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for your form letter concerning the Ebola virus and the Obama administration's handling of the previous incipient pandemic in the US and epidemic in West Africa.
Fortunately, the threat appears to have subsided. It may be that the subsiding was caused by appropriate action by the Obama Administration, but I believe it was more a matter of luck.
The spread of such diseases is basically controlled by a technical knowledge of the organisms lifecycle and reproduction. Such information is obtained by investigative processes, which are the responsibility of the Center for Disease Control (CDC). With this information, control is actually accomplished by quarantine procedures, which have been known for a great many years, but for some unknown reason seems to have fallen into disuse. It needs to be revived.
The CDC has previously admitted that it knew little about the Ebola virus. Perhaps that is changed, if they have been studying it for some months. However, I believe you as a Senator, need to have one of your subcommittees investigate CDC activity on this point, and if the CDC is found lacking, Congress should see that the appropriate investigative techniques are developed.
With respect to quarantine procedures, we now have an outbreak of measles, which can be appropriately handled by quarantine procedures. However, there seems to be a a reaction from some sources that mandatory vaccination would be an infringement of human rights. That's ridiculous. Human rights are only appropriately used when they do not negatively affect the rights of others. No person has the right to subject another innocent victim to measles or other similar disease, because he opposes vaccination for himself.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for your form letter concerning the Ebola virus and the Obama administration's handling of the previous incipient pandemic in the US and epidemic in West Africa.
Fortunately, the threat appears to have subsided. It may be that the subsiding was caused by appropriate action by the Obama Administration, but I believe it was more a matter of luck.
The spread of such diseases is basically controlled by a technical knowledge of the organisms lifecycle and reproduction. Such information is obtained by investigative processes, which are the responsibility of the Center for Disease Control (CDC). With this information, control is actually accomplished by quarantine procedures, which have been known for a great many years, but for some unknown reason seems to have fallen into disuse. It needs to be revived.
The CDC has previously admitted that it knew little about the Ebola virus. Perhaps that is changed, if they have been studying it for some months. However, I believe you as a Senator, need to have one of your subcommittees investigate CDC activity on this point, and if the CDC is found lacking, Congress should see that the appropriate investigative techniques are developed.
With respect to quarantine procedures, we now have an outbreak of measles, which can be appropriately handled by quarantine procedures. However, there seems to be a a reaction from some sources that mandatory vaccination would be an infringement of human rights. That's ridiculous. Human rights are only appropriately used when they do not negatively affect the rights of others. No person has the right to subject another innocent victim to measles or other similar disease, because he opposes vaccination for himself.
Handling Poverty with Opportunity
Open Email to Sen. Cruz:
Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for your form letter on welfare. You said there are more than 80 welfare programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). You also said that you have cosponsored a bill to require SNAP recipients to be employed or be actively seeking employment.
This is a step in the right direction, but there are two things wrong with it. First, it's a bill that's apparently going nowhere and second, it would handle only 1-80th of the various welfare programs.
We are all sympathetic with the difficulties of the poor, but long experience has shown that handouts to the poor do not help to reduce the general state of poverty, primarily because those handouts remove an incentive for the poor to improve their situation themselves.
This is the land of opportunity and the granting of handouts pushes opportunity into the background for a simple reason of human nature. Receiving a handout generally requires no work, although your proposed bill would reduce that to some degree. Exercise of opportunity requires effort of independent action. Human beings by nature all prefer efficiency, and they will take the easiest route to a goal. To reduce poverty, it is necessary to have opportunity be the less difficult course to follow than that of receiving handouts.
The best place to teach this, with its attendant detail, is in high schools. It is ridiculous to require the average high school student to learn calculus, when he has not the slightest idea of how to make a living. He should be taught how to obtain a job or develop an independent line of work which would be profitable. In short, he should be taught how to make money. This is presently not done because of the continued inefficiency of the federal system involving the Department of Education which grants money to school boards only if they follow an ineffectual program of education dictated by the department.
I have said for many years that the Department of Education should be eliminated, which would automatically reduce grants to school boards and allow them to properly apply conditions of education which would be helpful to the average student. I encourage you, as a Senator, to call for elimination of the Department of Education or if that seems impractical to reduce its level of funding to a basis where it is unable to make grants to local school boards and thereby stop controlling the education program.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for your form letter on welfare. You said there are more than 80 welfare programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). You also said that you have cosponsored a bill to require SNAP recipients to be employed or be actively seeking employment.
This is a step in the right direction, but there are two things wrong with it. First, it's a bill that's apparently going nowhere and second, it would handle only 1-80th of the various welfare programs.
We are all sympathetic with the difficulties of the poor, but long experience has shown that handouts to the poor do not help to reduce the general state of poverty, primarily because those handouts remove an incentive for the poor to improve their situation themselves.
This is the land of opportunity and the granting of handouts pushes opportunity into the background for a simple reason of human nature. Receiving a handout generally requires no work, although your proposed bill would reduce that to some degree. Exercise of opportunity requires effort of independent action. Human beings by nature all prefer efficiency, and they will take the easiest route to a goal. To reduce poverty, it is necessary to have opportunity be the less difficult course to follow than that of receiving handouts.
The best place to teach this, with its attendant detail, is in high schools. It is ridiculous to require the average high school student to learn calculus, when he has not the slightest idea of how to make a living. He should be taught how to obtain a job or develop an independent line of work which would be profitable. In short, he should be taught how to make money. This is presently not done because of the continued inefficiency of the federal system involving the Department of Education which grants money to school boards only if they follow an ineffectual program of education dictated by the department.
I have said for many years that the Department of Education should be eliminated, which would automatically reduce grants to school boards and allow them to properly apply conditions of education which would be helpful to the average student. I encourage you, as a Senator, to call for elimination of the Department of Education or if that seems impractical to reduce its level of funding to a basis where it is unable to make grants to local school boards and thereby stop controlling the education program.
EPA Abuses
Open Email to Sen. Cruz:
Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for your form letter on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
You said ,"The new emissions rules for existing power plants and the redefinition of navigable waters are overreaches that typify the Administration’s troubling behavior and threaten countless jobs. Controversial and harmful policies like these—especially those that seek to expand the role of the federal government—should be decided by Congress, not by a unilateral decree by the Obama administration."
I agree with you completely, but the question is, "What are you going to do about it?"
Congress set up the EPA and supposedly included guidelines on its responsibility and the courses of action it should take to satisfy the requirements of Congress. It also appointed the President as the Chief Executive Officer to control EPA operations. If this were a private business, the Congress, which would be equivalent to a Board of Directors, would have the power to direct the CEO to apply appropriate goals and responsibilities, and if necessary, fire the CEO. With the present state of government, Congress cannot fire the President. However, it can control the EPA program with appropriate funding or dis-funding, which originates in the House. The funding bill for the EPA could be very specific. It could disallow funding for any EPA action, which would be inappropriate from Congress's point of view.
We need EPA. It has done some good work, but it also has become a pawn for the President's ideological agenda. You mentioned new emissions rules for existing power plants. The President has been trying to kill off for many years the use of fossil fuels as an energy source and replace those with solar and wind energy. He has latched onto the emission of carbon dioxide in the burning of fossil fuels and has with insufficient data or even theory, claimed that such carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming with disastrous effects. The EPA has gone along for the ride.
On the positive side, it has previously been shown that the burning of coal containing significant quantities of sulfur gives sulfur dioxide as an emission, which subsequently oxidizes in the atmosphere to sulfur trioxide and is later brought down to earth as it dissolves in falling rain. This is the acid rain effect and is real. The global warming effect from carbon dioxide emissions is unreal. Congress should force the EPA to come up with a substantial set of facts or at least a well-qualified scientific theory that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels cause global warming. In its program, Congress should also be wary of claims from pseudo-scientists, who have joined the President/EPA bandwagon on carbon dioxide/global warming. They are being paid to do so through University research grants.
With respect to redefining navigable waters, from what Congress originally stipulated, the EPA has really gone out on a limb to foster the President 'S power grab. The EPA is now trying to define every little puddle and every dry streambed in the West as navigable waterways, in order to take control of the small amount of private not already in control of the federal government. Here again, appropriate use of the funding mechanism by Congress might be able to put a stop to that. If not, perhaps the EPA should be sued in federal court by Congress and let the court decide what a navigable waterway is.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for your form letter on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
You said ,"The new emissions rules for existing power plants and the redefinition of navigable waters are overreaches that typify the Administration’s troubling behavior and threaten countless jobs. Controversial and harmful policies like these—especially those that seek to expand the role of the federal government—should be decided by Congress, not by a unilateral decree by the Obama administration."
I agree with you completely, but the question is, "What are you going to do about it?"
Congress set up the EPA and supposedly included guidelines on its responsibility and the courses of action it should take to satisfy the requirements of Congress. It also appointed the President as the Chief Executive Officer to control EPA operations. If this were a private business, the Congress, which would be equivalent to a Board of Directors, would have the power to direct the CEO to apply appropriate goals and responsibilities, and if necessary, fire the CEO. With the present state of government, Congress cannot fire the President. However, it can control the EPA program with appropriate funding or dis-funding, which originates in the House. The funding bill for the EPA could be very specific. It could disallow funding for any EPA action, which would be inappropriate from Congress's point of view.
We need EPA. It has done some good work, but it also has become a pawn for the President's ideological agenda. You mentioned new emissions rules for existing power plants. The President has been trying to kill off for many years the use of fossil fuels as an energy source and replace those with solar and wind energy. He has latched onto the emission of carbon dioxide in the burning of fossil fuels and has with insufficient data or even theory, claimed that such carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming with disastrous effects. The EPA has gone along for the ride.
On the positive side, it has previously been shown that the burning of coal containing significant quantities of sulfur gives sulfur dioxide as an emission, which subsequently oxidizes in the atmosphere to sulfur trioxide and is later brought down to earth as it dissolves in falling rain. This is the acid rain effect and is real. The global warming effect from carbon dioxide emissions is unreal. Congress should force the EPA to come up with a substantial set of facts or at least a well-qualified scientific theory that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels cause global warming. In its program, Congress should also be wary of claims from pseudo-scientists, who have joined the President/EPA bandwagon on carbon dioxide/global warming. They are being paid to do so through University research grants.
With respect to redefining navigable waters, from what Congress originally stipulated, the EPA has really gone out on a limb to foster the President 'S power grab. The EPA is now trying to define every little puddle and every dry streambed in the West as navigable waterways, in order to take control of the small amount of private not already in control of the federal government. Here again, appropriate use of the funding mechanism by Congress might be able to put a stop to that. If not, perhaps the EPA should be sued in federal court by Congress and let the court decide what a navigable waterway is.
American Citizens Risk in War Areas
I am sorry about the death of Kayla Mueller, a U.S. ISIS hostage apparently killed in a Jordanian airstrike on Syria. However if she had not been there, she would not have been killed.
I covered this situation in a previous blog on 12/7/14. At that time, I said the following:
"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 of 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 persons engaged in any activity when they are on the federal government payroll."
Therefore, my position is that Kayla Mueller died as a result of a poor decision to her part to be in Syria. However, the federal government is not doing its job of properly advising citizens traveling abroad of the dangers that might be involved.
I covered this situation in a previous blog on 12/7/14. At that time, I said the following:
"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 of 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 persons engaged in any activity when they are on the federal government payroll."
Therefore, my position is that Kayla Mueller died as a result of a poor decision to her part to be in Syria. However, the federal government is not doing its job of properly advising citizens traveling abroad of the dangers that might be involved.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Romney as President
Romney would make a poor US president. He is basically a rerun of Obama, but a little less so. It would have been better if he had been elected president rather than Obama six years ago, but not much better.
The problems are multiple. Let's start with the fact that he introduced socialized medicine to Massachusetts, which then became a model for Obamacare. This means that he originally had no faith in American citizens being able to choose health care programs which would be satisfactory to them and that this should rather be done by big government through a mandate.
Romney is remaking recent noises that he may run again for president in the 2016 elections. According to the Washington Times, Romney gave a speech during a luncheon aboard the drydocked USS Midway museum in San Diego. During that speech, Rodney made the statement that he wanted "to lift people out of poverty” and “to make the world safe.” Taken as an open statement, it's not a bad idealism, but in historical and current terms, it carries a lot of baggage. It was a favorite of Pres. Franklin D Roosevelt, Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson and Pres. Obama through his redistribution of wealth program. All such socialistic programs were unsuccessful
The problems are mostly in the considerations of how these two things would be done. Liberal Democrats believe you lift people out of poverty by giving them money and goods, whereas a more practical approach is that people in poverty must lift themselves out of poverty. The way that non-poverty people and government can help is by giving the poverty people opportunities and incentives to do their own lifting. Think about the European immigrants who came to the US in the late 1800s and early 1900s for the land of opportunity, not for the land of free school lunches, food stamps, and the like.
With respect to making the world safe, we've been using six years of "be nice and talk sweet" to our foreign adversaries. The result has been obvious. We have more adversaries than we ever had before. The disadvantage of this is that American citizens are now exposed to more physical danger from foreign military activities than previously. I consider foreign military activities as terrorist actions, whether those terrorists were foreign-born or foreign indoctrinated American citizens. In addition, we have the massive threat of major destruction and death from the use of atomic weapons by rogue nations, such as North Korea and the developing atomic weapons of Iran weapon. This does not only affect American citizens but also the lives of humans around the world.
I used to be a semi-isolationist, to the extent that I felt we should have a good defensive posture against any foreign military attacks. I felt that the safety of foreign citizens with their own business, resulting in how they conducted themselves with respect to choosing their leadership and what they did about abuses of power within their own spheres.
However, I have somewhat modified my position through the years, now feeling that I do have a greater responsibility for the livelihood of foreign citizens unrelated to my personal involvement. I still do not believe in nationbuilding. I believe that other people of the world have the right to choose their own forms of government, even socialism/communism, monarchies and dictatorships. I am somewhat ambivalent about government forces killing several thousand people in Rwanda, but I now think that we should be using some of our military power to avoid these kinds of actions. I've come to this change primarily from reading the essays of Dr. Charles Krauthammer, which he wrote some years ago. His main point is that whether we like to were not, we have an obligation to maintain peace within the world. This came about after World War II, when America was the only adversaries left standing and had the responsibility to help the world recover. Krauthammer suggests that if we do not fulfill our obligation as world policeman, a vacuum ensues, which then leads to degradation of peace, the development of more atrocities, and a general feeling of unrest among the peoples of the world who are not even directly affected. We have the power to perform this obligation as well. The only question is a matter of degree. This could be regarded by some as being arrogant and even militarily aggressive. But, like anything else moderate use avoidS the abuse of power.
Romney will not do this. He tipped his hand in his USS Midway speech. His mode of action will be very similar to Obama's. He will try to lift people out of poverty by giving people additional benefits supported by taxpayers and debt through a government of ever increasing size and power.. He will talk sweet to foreign adversaries and assume he has no responsibility for world leadership through military use. He will be all talk; much like Obama.
It is interesting to speculate on how he and Obama could be so similar while arriving at positions of power from such dissimilar circumstances. Obama is antagonistic to the US and the American way of life, because he was taught so in his upbringing by his grandfather on basically foreign soil. Romney is an American having risen to a position of economic strength, presumably through his own capability. The likelihood is that he now has a guilt feeling, and with that feeling of guilt comes an attitude of super compassion for the poor. He does not remember how he achieved his position of financial superiority through his greater efforts. He probably feels lucky, which leads to compassion for people who he considers are less lucky.
The bottom line is that we need in a new president with an attitude that Americans are intelligent human beings, with the need to determine their own destiny and a right to use any means to achieve their goals, without government interference, but with the provision that they're not going to do obvious harm to other people. Romney doesn't fit.
The problems are multiple. Let's start with the fact that he introduced socialized medicine to Massachusetts, which then became a model for Obamacare. This means that he originally had no faith in American citizens being able to choose health care programs which would be satisfactory to them and that this should rather be done by big government through a mandate.
Romney is remaking recent noises that he may run again for president in the 2016 elections. According to the Washington Times, Romney gave a speech during a luncheon aboard the drydocked USS Midway museum in San Diego. During that speech, Rodney made the statement that he wanted "to lift people out of poverty” and “to make the world safe.” Taken as an open statement, it's not a bad idealism, but in historical and current terms, it carries a lot of baggage. It was a favorite of Pres. Franklin D Roosevelt, Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson and Pres. Obama through his redistribution of wealth program. All such socialistic programs were unsuccessful
The problems are mostly in the considerations of how these two things would be done. Liberal Democrats believe you lift people out of poverty by giving them money and goods, whereas a more practical approach is that people in poverty must lift themselves out of poverty. The way that non-poverty people and government can help is by giving the poverty people opportunities and incentives to do their own lifting. Think about the European immigrants who came to the US in the late 1800s and early 1900s for the land of opportunity, not for the land of free school lunches, food stamps, and the like.
With respect to making the world safe, we've been using six years of "be nice and talk sweet" to our foreign adversaries. The result has been obvious. We have more adversaries than we ever had before. The disadvantage of this is that American citizens are now exposed to more physical danger from foreign military activities than previously. I consider foreign military activities as terrorist actions, whether those terrorists were foreign-born or foreign indoctrinated American citizens. In addition, we have the massive threat of major destruction and death from the use of atomic weapons by rogue nations, such as North Korea and the developing atomic weapons of Iran weapon. This does not only affect American citizens but also the lives of humans around the world.
I used to be a semi-isolationist, to the extent that I felt we should have a good defensive posture against any foreign military attacks. I felt that the safety of foreign citizens with their own business, resulting in how they conducted themselves with respect to choosing their leadership and what they did about abuses of power within their own spheres.
However, I have somewhat modified my position through the years, now feeling that I do have a greater responsibility for the livelihood of foreign citizens unrelated to my personal involvement. I still do not believe in nationbuilding. I believe that other people of the world have the right to choose their own forms of government, even socialism/communism, monarchies and dictatorships. I am somewhat ambivalent about government forces killing several thousand people in Rwanda, but I now think that we should be using some of our military power to avoid these kinds of actions. I've come to this change primarily from reading the essays of Dr. Charles Krauthammer, which he wrote some years ago. His main point is that whether we like to were not, we have an obligation to maintain peace within the world. This came about after World War II, when America was the only adversaries left standing and had the responsibility to help the world recover. Krauthammer suggests that if we do not fulfill our obligation as world policeman, a vacuum ensues, which then leads to degradation of peace, the development of more atrocities, and a general feeling of unrest among the peoples of the world who are not even directly affected. We have the power to perform this obligation as well. The only question is a matter of degree. This could be regarded by some as being arrogant and even militarily aggressive. But, like anything else moderate use avoidS the abuse of power.
Romney will not do this. He tipped his hand in his USS Midway speech. His mode of action will be very similar to Obama's. He will try to lift people out of poverty by giving people additional benefits supported by taxpayers and debt through a government of ever increasing size and power.. He will talk sweet to foreign adversaries and assume he has no responsibility for world leadership through military use. He will be all talk; much like Obama.
It is interesting to speculate on how he and Obama could be so similar while arriving at positions of power from such dissimilar circumstances. Obama is antagonistic to the US and the American way of life, because he was taught so in his upbringing by his grandfather on basically foreign soil. Romney is an American having risen to a position of economic strength, presumably through his own capability. The likelihood is that he now has a guilt feeling, and with that feeling of guilt comes an attitude of super compassion for the poor. He does not remember how he achieved his position of financial superiority through his greater efforts. He probably feels lucky, which leads to compassion for people who he considers are less lucky.
The bottom line is that we need in a new president with an attitude that Americans are intelligent human beings, with the need to determine their own destiny and a right to use any means to achieve their goals, without government interference, but with the provision that they're not going to do obvious harm to other people. Romney doesn't fit.
Police Training
The Washington Times reports that Obama says police training is needed to reduce their racial ‘bias’. As usual, I disagree with almost everything that Obama says. However to give him some benefit of doubt, there is always at least a partial element of truth in his statements.
In this particular case, I agree completely that police need training, but they don't need training with respect to bias. Most police forces are multiracial, which means that there are a number of blacks included in the force. It is highly unlikely that a black would have a racial bias against another black, although it may be possible. Similarly, while there may be some whites who have racial bias against blacks, that is not a common occurrence.
The usual attitude of most people, including police, and probably with the exception of the black community, is that the record shows that most crimes of assault, murder, robbery, burglary, drug dealing and the like are committed at a higher per capita rate by blacks. In spite of any attempted teaching to the contrary by government, common sense always prevails among people that track record is an important consideration. If I have known that a person has been committed for embezzlement, I would be less likely to hire him as my financial officer. This is not to say that the world is not full of do-gooders and forgivers to the extent that they might even show preference to hiring such person to show what I believe would be an unwarranted trust. The fact remains that there is such a factor as recidivism, which is a chronic tendency toward repetition of criminal or antisocial behavior.
I have said previously the police need additional training; not to remove racial bias but rather to improve their relationship with the general public. Those police officers who demonstrate an officious attitude in their conversation with witnesses and suspected offenders must be either retrained or eliminated from duty. Gestapo attitudes are not appropriate in our current society. Information can be collected in a semi-friendly manner without any attempt to generate fear in the person being interrogated. Witnesses should be treated with respect, even if their contributions do not seem particularly relevant to the situation at hand. Officers need to be taught how to smile and use such phrases as "please and thank you". Those that continue to demonstrate Gestapo attitudes and actions need to be eliminated. Such training will over time bring greater respect to police forces and in all likelihood a better working cooperation with the public. Considerable damage has been done to the black community, and a lot of this damage has been self-imposed. It will take longer for the black community to accept the police as an organization with intention to help the community develop along positive productive lines, rather than constantly looking for deficiencies and efforts to jail individuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
