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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
