E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Iraqi Army Not Ready to Take Over Until 2020, Says Country's Top General. The Iraqi army is not ready to take over responsibility from the Americans, its most senior general has warned, as the White House insists the U.S. army is on course to end its combat role in the country by the end of this month. (guardian.co.uk)".
Tell him he has two choices. He can get ready, or he can buy military support from us through payments with oil. He should've been paying for this for the last several years. The fact that he has not paid has caused part of the problem of potential bankruptcy for the US.
Marshall did a good job after World War II with his innovative plan to renovate Germany and Japan. However, that plan has subsequently been abused. We need to return to the hundreds of years old practice of "to the victor, belong the spoils".
Friday, August 13, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Muslim Imam Goes to Middle East at US Taxpayer Expense
E-Mail to Congress:
Fox News reported this morning that the Muslim Imam involved in the building of the mosque at the 9/11 Site in New York City is traveling to the Middle East at US taxpayer expense.
The First Amendment to the Constitution involves only limitations on Congress with respect to religion. However US culture has established through numerous complaints an acceptance that government should not be involved in the promotion of religion. Government has taken this one step further and has taken many actions to eliminate all aspects of religion, particularly Christianity.
If the federal government bears expense of sending a Moslem Imam to the Middle East, whether for fund solicitation or religious cultural practice, it is completely contrary to other government religious directives, such as not praying in schools.
What do you plan to do about it?
Fox News reported this morning that the Muslim Imam involved in the building of the mosque at the 9/11 Site in New York City is traveling to the Middle East at US taxpayer expense.
The First Amendment to the Constitution involves only limitations on Congress with respect to religion. However US culture has established through numerous complaints an acceptance that government should not be involved in the promotion of religion. Government has taken this one step further and has taken many actions to eliminate all aspects of religion, particularly Christianity.
If the federal government bears expense of sending a Moslem Imam to the Middle East, whether for fund solicitation or religious cultural practice, it is completely contrary to other government religious directives, such as not praying in schools.
What do you plan to do about it?
Monday, August 9, 2010
Congress Should Not Be Distracted from Combating Socialistic Administration
E-Mail the Congress:
EIN News says, "As Spill Recedes, Probes Advance. The months-long saga of BP PLC's leaking well might be nearly over, but the investigations have only begun. (wsj.com)".
I hope that Congress does not get involved in this "who killed Cock Robin". We already know about BP's and it's subcontractors' errors. The Obama Administration must follow up to see the BP pays the bill. A small Congressional Committee can follow this from a distance to see that the Administration is doing its job. That same Committee can be looking at who was responsible within the Obama Administration to allow any unusual risks in the drilling operations. Subsequent resignation of those responsible is necessary, but this should not be necessary for Congress as a whole to follow.
Congress needs to not be sidetracked with such details, but needs to keep its eye on restricting and turning back the socialistic proclamations of the Obama administration.
EIN News says, "As Spill Recedes, Probes Advance. The months-long saga of BP PLC's leaking well might be nearly over, but the investigations have only begun. (wsj.com)".
I hope that Congress does not get involved in this "who killed Cock Robin". We already know about BP's and it's subcontractors' errors. The Obama Administration must follow up to see the BP pays the bill. A small Congressional Committee can follow this from a distance to see that the Administration is doing its job. That same Committee can be looking at who was responsible within the Obama Administration to allow any unusual risks in the drilling operations. Subsequent resignation of those responsible is necessary, but this should not be necessary for Congress as a whole to follow.
Congress needs to not be sidetracked with such details, but needs to keep its eye on restricting and turning back the socialistic proclamations of the Obama administration.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Banning Nuclear Weapons Is Impossible
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Hiroshima Marks 65th Atomic Bomb Anniversary, Calls for End of Nuke Weapons. Japan's Hiroshima marked the 65th atomic bomb anniversary on Friday for the first time with the presence of the UN chief and U.S. representatives, calling for a world free of nuclear weapons. (xinhuanet.com)".
This is a ridiculous assertion! It would be in the same category as eliminating all lawbreaking or eliminating sex. As long as some people wish to have an advantage over others, they will use whatever weapon they feel is necessary, including nuclear weapons.
The US used the atomic bomb in World War II to protect itself against domination by the Japanese. This was basically a defensive use. However, if the atomic bomb had been in the hands of the Japanese, I believe there would have been little hesitation on their using it to achieve their ends of world domination at that time.
The UN Chief and US Rep. are completely out of step with an understanding of human motivations.
Nuclear weapons are here to stay. Pandora's Box has been opened. There is no way to re-close it.
The US must now be foremost in its ability to produce and use nuclear weapons as may be necessary, and this includes the primary limitation, which will be human judgment. An attitude such as indicated by the U.S. representative above will lead to complete destruction of the United States, as its enemies understand that the US will take no action until it's too late.
The "Mutually Destructive" policy, under which we have been operating for almost 70 years, has been effective but has its limitations. The use of terrorism activities has been a relatively recent activity in war. To counteract this, we need to develop small-scale nuclear weapons, which will give us an option other than mutual destruction. You might even get some Democrats to vote along with you on this development. Even today, I suspect that not all Democrats are pie-in-the-sky. There may still be a few like Roosevelt and Truman, who approved the development of the atomic bomb and its use.
EIN News says, "Hiroshima Marks 65th Atomic Bomb Anniversary, Calls for End of Nuke Weapons. Japan's Hiroshima marked the 65th atomic bomb anniversary on Friday for the first time with the presence of the UN chief and U.S. representatives, calling for a world free of nuclear weapons. (xinhuanet.com)".
This is a ridiculous assertion! It would be in the same category as eliminating all lawbreaking or eliminating sex. As long as some people wish to have an advantage over others, they will use whatever weapon they feel is necessary, including nuclear weapons.
The US used the atomic bomb in World War II to protect itself against domination by the Japanese. This was basically a defensive use. However, if the atomic bomb had been in the hands of the Japanese, I believe there would have been little hesitation on their using it to achieve their ends of world domination at that time.
The UN Chief and US Rep. are completely out of step with an understanding of human motivations.
Nuclear weapons are here to stay. Pandora's Box has been opened. There is no way to re-close it.
The US must now be foremost in its ability to produce and use nuclear weapons as may be necessary, and this includes the primary limitation, which will be human judgment. An attitude such as indicated by the U.S. representative above will lead to complete destruction of the United States, as its enemies understand that the US will take no action until it's too late.
The "Mutually Destructive" policy, under which we have been operating for almost 70 years, has been effective but has its limitations. The use of terrorism activities has been a relatively recent activity in war. To counteract this, we need to develop small-scale nuclear weapons, which will give us an option other than mutual destruction. You might even get some Democrats to vote along with you on this development. Even today, I suspect that not all Democrats are pie-in-the-sky. There may still be a few like Roosevelt and Truman, who approved the development of the atomic bomb and its use.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Big Government Gets More Heavy-Handed
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Other Energy Issues Seep Into Spill Legislation. Energy legislation advancing in the Senate would force companies to reveal closely held details about the chemical cocktails they use to extract natural gas from shale rock, imposing the first federal regulation on hydraulic fracturing. (chron.com)."
This is a sample of what I mean when I talk about hiding sneaky stuff in legislation.
In this case, we're talking about "proprietary know-how". While we have a nice Patent/Trademark law, government and industry have recognized that corporations and private individuals have a right to secrecy in chemical formulations. An example of this recognition is in the Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheets, which are government mandated for all chemical compositions either offered to the public or used in the environment. For the MSDS, it is sufficient to designate a formulation by trademark without indicating specific chemical compositions, providing toxicity and environmental data showing that all constituents are essentially innocuous.
Forcing corporations and individuals to reveal inapplicable details of their "know-how" would be a significant change from current accepted practice and could be considered an infraction on personal rights. Government is not known for its reliability in retaining confidential information belonging to others. In fact, it has difficulty in avoiding leaks of its own information. The fact that the bill specifically requests the composition of hydraulic fracturing material, may also imply that someone in the federal government anticipates being able to obtain the information and subsequently sell it to industry competitors.
For those who may distrust the submitted MSDS toxicity and environmental data, I would like to remind them that we have in these days very effective analytical techniques. If government feels it needs to know an exact chemical composition of a formulation, it always has the option of a laboratory analysis.
This consideration of chemical cocktails in hydraulic fracturing for natural gas is not grossly significant in itself. It is just another step of imposition of big government on the rights of corporations and individuals.
EIN News says, "Other Energy Issues Seep Into Spill Legislation. Energy legislation advancing in the Senate would force companies to reveal closely held details about the chemical cocktails they use to extract natural gas from shale rock, imposing the first federal regulation on hydraulic fracturing. (chron.com)."
This is a sample of what I mean when I talk about hiding sneaky stuff in legislation.
In this case, we're talking about "proprietary know-how". While we have a nice Patent/Trademark law, government and industry have recognized that corporations and private individuals have a right to secrecy in chemical formulations. An example of this recognition is in the Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheets, which are government mandated for all chemical compositions either offered to the public or used in the environment. For the MSDS, it is sufficient to designate a formulation by trademark without indicating specific chemical compositions, providing toxicity and environmental data showing that all constituents are essentially innocuous.
Forcing corporations and individuals to reveal inapplicable details of their "know-how" would be a significant change from current accepted practice and could be considered an infraction on personal rights. Government is not known for its reliability in retaining confidential information belonging to others. In fact, it has difficulty in avoiding leaks of its own information. The fact that the bill specifically requests the composition of hydraulic fracturing material, may also imply that someone in the federal government anticipates being able to obtain the information and subsequently sell it to industry competitors.
For those who may distrust the submitted MSDS toxicity and environmental data, I would like to remind them that we have in these days very effective analytical techniques. If government feels it needs to know an exact chemical composition of a formulation, it always has the option of a laboratory analysis.
This consideration of chemical cocktails in hydraulic fracturing for natural gas is not grossly significant in itself. It is just another step of imposition of big government on the rights of corporations and individuals.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Arizona's Immigration Law
E-Mail to Congress:
This is a U.S. Constitutional approach to Arizona's controversial immigration law. Sections of the U.S. Constitution and an Amendment are quoted. Each quotation is designated by ". Each of my comments is designated by [.
The Constitution of the United States
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
[There are 18 specified powers of Congress, none of which pertain to immigration.]
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
[This implies that in the years 1808 and later, Congress may establish immigration laws. However, it is not among the specifically designated 18 Congressional Powers.]
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
"The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
[Since the Power to control immigration is not among the 18 designated Powers of Congress and is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution, each State may make and enforce its own immigration laws].
If this case comes to the US. Supreme Court and the above arguments are refuted, we should consider another aspect of the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
"He [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [If the Supreme Court declares the U.S. Congress immigration law to be valid, the President can be charged with dereliction of duty in not enforcing Congress' immigration law.]
[A President may be impeached if he commits "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". One definition of "High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.]
In not enforcing Federal Immigration Law, the President can be accused of attempting to alter the outcome of elections.
This is a U.S. Constitutional approach to Arizona's controversial immigration law. Sections of the U.S. Constitution and an Amendment are quoted. Each quotation is designated by ". Each of my comments is designated by [.
The Constitution of the United States
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
[There are 18 specified powers of Congress, none of which pertain to immigration.]
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
[This implies that in the years 1808 and later, Congress may establish immigration laws. However, it is not among the specifically designated 18 Congressional Powers.]
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
"The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
[Since the Power to control immigration is not among the 18 designated Powers of Congress and is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution, each State may make and enforce its own immigration laws].
If this case comes to the US. Supreme Court and the above arguments are refuted, we should consider another aspect of the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
"He [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [If the Supreme Court declares the U.S. Congress immigration law to be valid, the President can be charged with dereliction of duty in not enforcing Congress' immigration law.]
[A President may be impeached if he commits "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". One definition of "High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.]
In not enforcing Federal Immigration Law, the President can be accused of attempting to alter the outcome of elections.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
There Are No Innocent Civilians in War
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. General Petraeus Vows to Protect Afghan Civilians. The new chief of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has vowed to protect Afghan civilians as he has been briefing allies and partners at NATO HQ in Brussels before heading to Kabul. (bbc.co.uk)".
Bad move! The above statement implies that Afghan civilians are innocent civilians. In war, there is no such thing as innocent civilians. Civilians are either for you or against you in favor of the locally established government. For example, there were not a significant number of innocent German civilians, during World War II. The people elected Hitler. They fought for Hitler. They worked in factories to produce war goods for Hitler.
In an environment such as Afghanistan, it is difficult to determine who the civilian enemies are. It should be assumed that every Afghani is an enemy, until he proves otherwise. This does not mean that killing civilians should be a high priority item. The first priority is the killing of Afghanis who are obviously bearing arms against us. Civilians are in the second category, to be later divided into local government supporters or our friends, and then handled accordingly. We learned this in Korea and Vietnam. Do we have to sacrifice more GI's to learn it again?
EIN News says, "U.S. General Petraeus Vows to Protect Afghan Civilians. The new chief of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has vowed to protect Afghan civilians as he has been briefing allies and partners at NATO HQ in Brussels before heading to Kabul. (bbc.co.uk)".
Bad move! The above statement implies that Afghan civilians are innocent civilians. In war, there is no such thing as innocent civilians. Civilians are either for you or against you in favor of the locally established government. For example, there were not a significant number of innocent German civilians, during World War II. The people elected Hitler. They fought for Hitler. They worked in factories to produce war goods for Hitler.
In an environment such as Afghanistan, it is difficult to determine who the civilian enemies are. It should be assumed that every Afghani is an enemy, until he proves otherwise. This does not mean that killing civilians should be a high priority item. The first priority is the killing of Afghanis who are obviously bearing arms against us. Civilians are in the second category, to be later divided into local government supporters or our friends, and then handled accordingly. We learned this in Korea and Vietnam. Do we have to sacrifice more GI's to learn it again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
