How do I know that terrorism is alive and well in the US? Because I can see that it is working. Another terrorist activity has been reported on the news this morning. Mohamed Osman Mohamud attempted to blow-up what he thought was an explosive-packed van during a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, OR. While there failed to be an explosion, it scares the pants off the American public, which is one of the objectives of terrorism and why it is on the national television news.
While there is hardly a day that goes by without some aspect of terrorism being reported either directly and indirectly, this is a significant increase compared to our historical experience. In effect, terrorism is working.
One of the major reasons that terrorism is working is an abuse of compassion on the part of the American public combined with an unrealistic attitude with respect to personal liberties. When a civilian jury in New York finds a terrorist guilty on only one of a large number of charges, it is apparent that there is something wrong with the system. In effect, the American public doesn't like terrorism in any form, but doesn't have the will to do anything about it, because of ambiguous emotional feelings. When the picture of a terrorist is portrayed on TV, most of the public will say, "Isn't he a sweet looking man. He couldn't have done anything like that. I think he is being framed by government."
As you have noted from my previous correspondence, I am normally not a supporter of big government or most of the actions of our present government. However, in its present activities to control terrorism, through infiltration into terrorist societies, electronic scans and pat downs at airports, it is doing a reasonable job, in spite of the fact that it has to fight the American public to do so. The bottom line is that if left to the American public, terrorism will continue to grow and ultimately achieve a status of success which will make the New York 911 situation mild by comparison.
Therefore, we need a new program. First, we need to take the legal prosecution of terrorists out of the hands of American juries. Terrorists are enemy combatants, no matter what their nationality, age, sex, ethnic origin, etc.. As such, they must be prosecuted by military courts, and those military courts must be immune to political pressures coming from the American public. In the prosecution, a new classification of charge must be established. I suggest, "Intent to commit mass murder". We can leave it up to military lawyers to establish definitions, but murder means killing people. Mass means more than one, whether defined or not. Intent means having put into place some physical means by which to accomplish the murder.
When an alleged terrorist is apprehended, he must be tried by a military court within two weeks of the apprehension. The trial must last no longer than two days. If the alleged terrorist is found innocent, he should be immediately released, but continually surveyed by law enforcement authorities. If found guilty, he should be executed within two days of the guilty verdict. There should be no process of appeal nor life prison sentence.
Let's get the ball moving. There should be no public announcement, because we've seen that the public can't be trusted to do the right thing in this matter. Too bad that we have to go through Congress, which already involves a lot of people, but that is our system of government. In World War II, two people decided to build an atomic bomb. President Roosevelt and General Groves. But that was a time of war. Perhaps Congress should start this whole ball rolling by declaring war against terrorism.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Hit Terrorism Hard at the Source
E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I read your latest newsletter.
We agree that terrorism is a threat to the US population. It will likely continue forever. Similar to viral contamination, it cannot be eliminated. It must be continually controlled.
We need to reduce terrorism activity. One of the most urgent aspects is now to reduce activities in Yemen. To accomplish this, we need to stop pussyfooting around with the Yemen government, which has already proven that it is either incapable or has no interest in eliminating terrorist bases within its borders. You do this by telling the Yemen government that they have a certain time in which to achieve specified results, or you will act independently, probably with bombs and missiles rather than ground forces. Are you doing anything along these lines with respect to petitioning our State Department and Military or are you just writing about it in newsletters to voters?
I voted "no" on your question of the week concerning whether I am willing to pay more for shipping. I also note that 65% of the responders voted "yes". I believe they did so on the presumption that terrorism from foreign sources cannot be controlled at the source, but must be controlled at the borders of the US. From my previous paragraph, you will note that I disagree completely with that premise. Control them at the source!!
It appears that you are a shu-in for reelection in today's voting. May I also remind you that the Tea Party is supporting Republicans on a conditional basis. Tea Party representatives have said that Republicans are "on trial".
We now must go back to the old "saw". You have heard from the public that we are opposed to "the unprecedented levels of government spending and debt. The rapidly growing federal bureaucracy and harmful new EPA regulations were also common conversation topics. Many of you are hoping that Congress will pass much-needed tax relief for working families and small businesses before the end of the year." I notice again that you give no indication of what you actually plan to do about it, other than perhaps sympathize.
I read your latest newsletter.
We agree that terrorism is a threat to the US population. It will likely continue forever. Similar to viral contamination, it cannot be eliminated. It must be continually controlled.
We need to reduce terrorism activity. One of the most urgent aspects is now to reduce activities in Yemen. To accomplish this, we need to stop pussyfooting around with the Yemen government, which has already proven that it is either incapable or has no interest in eliminating terrorist bases within its borders. You do this by telling the Yemen government that they have a certain time in which to achieve specified results, or you will act independently, probably with bombs and missiles rather than ground forces. Are you doing anything along these lines with respect to petitioning our State Department and Military or are you just writing about it in newsletters to voters?
I voted "no" on your question of the week concerning whether I am willing to pay more for shipping. I also note that 65% of the responders voted "yes". I believe they did so on the presumption that terrorism from foreign sources cannot be controlled at the source, but must be controlled at the borders of the US. From my previous paragraph, you will note that I disagree completely with that premise. Control them at the source!!
It appears that you are a shu-in for reelection in today's voting. May I also remind you that the Tea Party is supporting Republicans on a conditional basis. Tea Party representatives have said that Republicans are "on trial".
We now must go back to the old "saw". You have heard from the public that we are opposed to "the unprecedented levels of government spending and debt. The rapidly growing federal bureaucracy and harmful new EPA regulations were also common conversation topics. Many of you are hoping that Congress will pass much-needed tax relief for working families and small businesses before the end of the year." I notice again that you give no indication of what you actually plan to do about it, other than perhaps sympathize.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Call for Action
E-mail to Representative Neugebauer:
I read your latest newsletter.
Welcoming Home, the Page Program, Service Academy Nominations, District Work Schedule, and NPR Funding are all what I consider "maintenance" parts of the job. None of these are particularly relevant to the difficulties we find ourselves in with respect to government financing, mandatory eliminations of personal rights, and especially jobs. The only one that can partially qualify is NPR Funding, which should be eliminated to save a few dollars. You merely asked the question. You didn't say what you're going to do about it.
May I again suggest that you start to concentrate on actions, which will improve our country and particularly revive capitalism and opportunity, with the elimination of previous socialistic programs.
I read your latest newsletter.
Welcoming Home, the Page Program, Service Academy Nominations, District Work Schedule, and NPR Funding are all what I consider "maintenance" parts of the job. None of these are particularly relevant to the difficulties we find ourselves in with respect to government financing, mandatory eliminations of personal rights, and especially jobs. The only one that can partially qualify is NPR Funding, which should be eliminated to save a few dollars. You merely asked the question. You didn't say what you're going to do about it.
May I again suggest that you start to concentrate on actions, which will improve our country and particularly revive capitalism and opportunity, with the elimination of previous socialistic programs.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Combat Chinese Efforts to Control Military Strategic Materials
EIN News says, "Greens Shackle National Security - And Renewable Energy 23 Oct 2010 - 10:30".
This is a bit short and somewhat obtuse as presented, but it's important. You may want to read the complete article at: http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?vid=+x2b597NdxwRpLLZ&v=61763EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM.
A summary of the situation is as follows:
Rare earths are chemical compounds of a group of chemical elements known as rare earth elements. They are used as raw materials in the production of modern technological devices. Some of these devices are stealth fighter jets, digital cameras, computer hard drives, wind turbine magnets, solar panels, hybrid and electric car batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and catalytic converters.
We previously mined much of what was needed here in the US. However the mining is difficult and labor-intensive, and production slowly moved to China, where labor costs were significantly lower. At present, the US produces essentially no rare earths and all such material required as raw materials for the above-mentioned technological devices must be imported, usually from China.
The Chinese, recognizing that they have a monopoly on the rare earth market, have decreased exports, which automatically raises prices. They presumably do this as a strategy for obtaining US taxpayer dollars, which the US government uses as subsidies for US production of modern technological devices.
In addition to this Chinese technique of extracting more dollars from the American taxpayer, through the US federal government subsidies, the US is placed in a more vulnerable military position by market imposed restrictions in the manufacture of essential military hardware, some of which is listed above.
We have previously faced similar situations. Prior to World War I, most chemical production was in Germany. At the onset of the war, the US was deprived of imports of those chemicals required for the war effort, and it required some time and effort to establish any significant chemical production here in the US. For this reason, the military has defined some essentials materials as "strategic". For example, crude oil is a strategic material, for which reason the military has a stockpile.
While I am opposed to most of the operations of big government, it is the federal government responsibility to take action for the protection of the American public against foreign powers. This includes maintaining sufficient military power to combat any physical invasion, and that power is likely to require sufficient military hardware, which is produced using rare earths as a raw material.
The obvious action that must be taken by the US government to neutralize the Chinese initiative is to immediately declare rare earths "strategic" materials and impose a significant import duty, such that the price automatically rises to a level where US mining companies can again justify a productive position and thereby guarantee independence from foreign sources to the advantage of controlling our ability to produce military hardware.
The Chinese reaction to this will be to allow increased exports from China, which will tend to lower rare earth prices and keep production in China. However, as the Chinese take such action which will lower prices, we must continue to increase import duties to justify US mining companies to produce in the US.
This program will be difficult for the Obama Administration to swallow, since it is contradictory to its efforts to redistribute wealth on a worldwide basis, including giving Chinese miners continued employment. However I am not concerned with Chinese miners. They can find something else to do. Meanwhile, I want to have a strong military, including hardware, to protect the American public from foreign invasion and also to create jobs for American miners.
This is a bit short and somewhat obtuse as presented, but it's important. You may want to read the complete article at: http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?vid=+x2b597NdxwRpLLZ&v=61763EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM.
A summary of the situation is as follows:
Rare earths are chemical compounds of a group of chemical elements known as rare earth elements. They are used as raw materials in the production of modern technological devices. Some of these devices are stealth fighter jets, digital cameras, computer hard drives, wind turbine magnets, solar panels, hybrid and electric car batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and catalytic converters.
We previously mined much of what was needed here in the US. However the mining is difficult and labor-intensive, and production slowly moved to China, where labor costs were significantly lower. At present, the US produces essentially no rare earths and all such material required as raw materials for the above-mentioned technological devices must be imported, usually from China.
The Chinese, recognizing that they have a monopoly on the rare earth market, have decreased exports, which automatically raises prices. They presumably do this as a strategy for obtaining US taxpayer dollars, which the US government uses as subsidies for US production of modern technological devices.
In addition to this Chinese technique of extracting more dollars from the American taxpayer, through the US federal government subsidies, the US is placed in a more vulnerable military position by market imposed restrictions in the manufacture of essential military hardware, some of which is listed above.
We have previously faced similar situations. Prior to World War I, most chemical production was in Germany. At the onset of the war, the US was deprived of imports of those chemicals required for the war effort, and it required some time and effort to establish any significant chemical production here in the US. For this reason, the military has defined some essentials materials as "strategic". For example, crude oil is a strategic material, for which reason the military has a stockpile.
While I am opposed to most of the operations of big government, it is the federal government responsibility to take action for the protection of the American public against foreign powers. This includes maintaining sufficient military power to combat any physical invasion, and that power is likely to require sufficient military hardware, which is produced using rare earths as a raw material.
The obvious action that must be taken by the US government to neutralize the Chinese initiative is to immediately declare rare earths "strategic" materials and impose a significant import duty, such that the price automatically rises to a level where US mining companies can again justify a productive position and thereby guarantee independence from foreign sources to the advantage of controlling our ability to produce military hardware.
The Chinese reaction to this will be to allow increased exports from China, which will tend to lower rare earth prices and keep production in China. However, as the Chinese take such action which will lower prices, we must continue to increase import duties to justify US mining companies to produce in the US.
This program will be difficult for the Obama Administration to swallow, since it is contradictory to its efforts to redistribute wealth on a worldwide basis, including giving Chinese miners continued employment. However I am not concerned with Chinese miners. They can find something else to do. Meanwhile, I want to have a strong military, including hardware, to protect the American public from foreign invasion and also to create jobs for American miners.
Friday, October 22, 2010
We Should Not Be Spending Money on Nationbuilding
EIN News says, "U.S. to Cut Aid to Pakistan Military Units Over Human Rights Abuses. The U.S. government plans to cut military aid to several Pakistani military units as punishment for human rights abuses, including torture and extrajudicial executions, according to senior officials. (guardian.co.uk)".
Good move for the wrong reason. We should not be giving military aid to Pakistan or any other country. We are not in the business of nationbuilding. We have enough difficulty right now in rebuilding our own nation from the serious destruction caused by Democratic/Socialistic actions.
Human rights abuses, including torture and extrajudicial executions, will continue on a worldwide basis no matter what the US government thinks or does. The answer is to maintain within the US a constitutional human rights program, and invite immigration on a controlled basis to those persons who are being subjected to those hardships in their home countries. Simultaneously, we must consider a limitation on numbers and quality of immigrants. This is no different than persons trying to take in all available stray cats and dogs, when those persons are unable to handle their own livelihood.
Good move for the wrong reason. We should not be giving military aid to Pakistan or any other country. We are not in the business of nationbuilding. We have enough difficulty right now in rebuilding our own nation from the serious destruction caused by Democratic/Socialistic actions.
Human rights abuses, including torture and extrajudicial executions, will continue on a worldwide basis no matter what the US government thinks or does. The answer is to maintain within the US a constitutional human rights program, and invite immigration on a controlled basis to those persons who are being subjected to those hardships in their home countries. Simultaneously, we must consider a limitation on numbers and quality of immigrants. This is no different than persons trying to take in all available stray cats and dogs, when those persons are unable to handle their own livelihood.
We Need Trust in Government
EIN News says, "Iraq Province Says Foreign Gas Firms Are Unwelcome. Authorities in a western Iraqi province rejected the results of this week's government-organized gas auction, which allowed a pair of foreign companies to develop a big deposit on its territory. (yahoo.com)".
This confirms what I said a few days ago, which was that there was very little participation in the bidding because potential bidders did not trust the Iraqi government.
I maintain my more important point from this lesson, which is that the US must reestablish trust in government by its citizenry. We should do that by simplifying verbiage in our laws, not quibbling about details or establishing exceptions, reducing the size of government, and having government involved only in those matters for which government is needed.
This confirms what I said a few days ago, which was that there was very little participation in the bidding because potential bidders did not trust the Iraqi government.
I maintain my more important point from this lesson, which is that the US must reestablish trust in government by its citizenry. We should do that by simplifying verbiage in our laws, not quibbling about details or establishing exceptions, reducing the size of government, and having government involved only in those matters for which government is needed.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Lack of Trust in Government Inhibits Development
EIN News says, " Iraq Offers Up Three Gas Fields to Global Firms. Iraq auctioned off three major natural gas fields to international companies, part of its strategy to shake off a legacy of war and isolation by opening up the lucrative sector. (reuters.com)
Only five companies submitted bids for Iraq gas fields. Only one bid submitted for second-largest field on offer."
The reason for the low participation is clear. Drilling companies do not trust the government.
You may want to take the page from that book. When citizens and private companies do not trust government, including individuals in power, they will not cooperate.
That position has been arrived at not only in Iraq but also in the US. You must do something about it. The key word is "integrity".
Only five companies submitted bids for Iraq gas fields. Only one bid submitted for second-largest field on offer."
The reason for the low participation is clear. Drilling companies do not trust the government.
You may want to take the page from that book. When citizens and private companies do not trust government, including individuals in power, they will not cooperate.
That position has been arrived at not only in Iraq but also in the US. You must do something about it. The key word is "integrity".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
