Competitive Russia

EIN News says, "Below Surface, U.S. Has Dim View of Putin and Russia. Early in 2009, as recession rippled around the world, the United States Embassy in Moscow sent to Washington a cable summarizing whispers within Russia's political class. Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, the rumors said, often did not show up at his office. (nytimes.com).

Naturally, the US government would have a dim view of Putin and Russia. They are world competitors. Russian power is variable from time to time, which makes them variable weak and strong competitors. Early in Reagan's Administration, Russia was in a seemingly powerful position as controller of the Soviet Union. Reagan put the kibosh on that by being able to outspend them on defense issues. That led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Competitive Russia The situation is now radically different, Russia has been able to reorganize since the Soviet Union collapse, and the US is fallen into poverty. The US Administration will not admit its deficiency, and the strong arm of jealousy now prevails.

It is ridiculous to even talk about Putin often not showing up at his office. I say that if he always showed up at his office, he would not doing his job. An office is a base of operations. It's not a place to continually rest your butt.

In its reorganization, Russia has come to realize the advantages of capitalism and is moving in that direction. The recent partnership with Shell Oil in developing Siberian fossil fuels and also allowing the Russians to operate in areas outside of their own territory is likely a thorn in the Obama Administration's side. The US has basically become more socialistic/communistic than Russia. There is still an opportunity for the U. S. Congress and the public to turn this around. The world is a competitive place. Let's not spend time criticizing our competitors. Rather we should become more capable competitors ourselves.

E-Mails to the President's Staff

Open letter to President Obama's Staff:

You say the President has promised the most transparent administration in history, and the staff is said to be committed to listening to and responding to me.
If that is true, why does the staff use an obtuse method of forced complication through a website in order to send a message to the President?
Is there something wrong with revealing a straightforward e-mail address, or does the staff intentionally use a method by which it can discourage communication?

Bullying

We hear a lot about bullying these days. Most of it is ridiculous. It becomes absurd, when there is even consideration for government involvement. I caution government representatives to stay out of it. It will lead only to emotional trauma.

To better understand bullying, let's consider what it really is. It is a technique by which a person or group attempts to gain power over another individual or group through threat of violence or other undesirable result. The bully expects that his target subject is then amenable to granting concessions.

Here are some examples of bullying. A fifth grader threatens to punch a fourth grader, unless the fourth-grader gives up his allowance. North Korea threatens to use nuclear weapons and actually uses standard artillery to convince South Korea and the US to make economic concessions. Government threatens the public with dire financial collapse, unless they approve massive bailouts. A male boss threatens a female employee with demotion or firing unless she accedes to his sexual requests.

There are commonalities in all of the above scenes. The first is the desire for power on the part of the bully, as already mentioned. The second involves the person or group being bullied. If that person or group agrees to the bully's demands, a bullying situation is executed. However, if that same person or group does not agree to the bully's demands, a contest develops, in which it is likely that the bully will back down.

The key point is that life is full of bullying situations. Children must be taught to stand up for themselves at some physical risk. And so learning, they then become able to handle more complex bullying situations as adults. Any society which is taught that bullying situations can be alleviated by a higher power, is doomed to destruction. An over-protective parent who comes to the defense of his child in a bullying situation at school, on the sports field, or wherever, is not allowing his child to grow to handle adult problems. In such situations, a parent should be an observer and not interfere with the attempted bullying process. If a child accedes to a bullying request, he learns to pay the penalty. If he does not exceed the learns that he himself has personal power.

This is a situation of personal life in which government, including schools, have no business operating. It is an area that must be reserved for the general public, particularly parents in the teaching of their children. It should be accepted that bullying will never be eliminated. It is a fact of life and people must learn to deal with it.

Terrorism Is Alive and Well in the US

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.

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.

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.

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.