Why did the Pakistanis give the doctor, who helped the US locate Osama bin Laden, a 30-year prison sentence?
You need to think like a Pakistani in order to get the answer. Basically, it was a business gone bad.
The US is afraid of terrorists and terrorist organizations, particularly foreign-based. The US government feels that Pakistan is a breeding ground for such terrorists and through substantial monetary payments, it solicits help from the Pakistani government to control the terrorists.
However, the Pakistani government recognizes that the only reason it obtains substantial monetary funds from the US is because of the existence of terrorists in their country. In other words, if there were no terrorists, the US would have no reason to send money. The obvious course of Pakistani action is to maintain terrorist activity in order to maintain a continuing flow of US funds.
As long as Osama bin Laden was alive, the US had a greater fear of terrorism and a willingness to part with more money. This was obviously an incentive to the Pakistani government to maintain the life of Osama bin Laden. The best way to do this was to have him in Pakistan and closely protected.
However, the Pakistani doctor blew the cover by revealing the location of Osama bin Laden, which resulted in his death at the hands of US forces. This significantly reduces the incentive of the US government to maintain a high flow of funds to Pakistan. Obviously, the Pakistan government is upset with this development and has given the doctor appropriate retribution of a 30-year prison sentence.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Monday, May 28, 2012
"WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS."
This is an Internet poll on gun
ownership. It was forwarded to me by Gordon Anderson.
If you click on the "USATODAY.COM", you
will be asked the question, "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the
right to bear arms?. If you vote "yes", you will receive a message that 97% of
respondents voted the same way.
I won't take issue with the
numbers.
I question the motivation of the voters.
I suspect that the 97% "yes" voters are not actually voting on whether the 2nd
Amendment gives them the right to own guns. They likely are voting on their desire
to own guns.
Why would they
take this attitude? It's something to consider on this Memorial Day, when
we honor our fallen veterans, who attempted to preserve our freedoms, or some
may say "preserve our liberty".
We need to go back to the War of Independence, also known
as the Revolutionary War. It was there that our freedoms were established. These
freedoms were only later documented. The British used guns to quell the
rebellion. The colonists used guns to persist in pursuit of independence and
freedom. Colonial guns made the difference. Without them, we would still be
British subjects.
What about subsequent wars, such as the Korean War, the
Vietnam War, the Iraq War the Libya War, and the Afghanistan War? Were they wars
to reserve our liberties and freedom? There are various opinions, but my claim
is that it is a long stretch to believe that our freedoms were threatened by
dictators and other regimes in those countries. But that is not the issue We are
talking about guns, and in each of those conflicts guns were heavily
involved.
We now have at home an increasing national objection to
actions by our federal government. Our government officials are no less human
than Sadaam Hussein or Qaddafi. They like power and will use force if necessary
to retain it. Can it happen here, as it did in Iraq and Libya and now in Syria?
Unlikely, but why take chances? The Federal Government would like a weakened
populace, if push comes to shove, and is opposed to citizens owning guns. The
citizens see the potential danger and wish to protect themselves against radical
government actions to destroy liberties. The presence of guns in the hands of
citizens also serves to restrain government, even if the guns are not
used.
None of the above is applicable to the slow loss of
freedoms, which has been occurring through socialist conversion over the past 80
years, but that is another matter for discussion at a later time and perhaps a
temporary reprieve in the forthcoming November
elections.
-----Original Message-----
Subject: "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS." TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS ...
Subject: "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS." TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS ...
I
don’t presently own a gun and have no immediate plans to buy one….but I don’t
think the government has the right to forbid me to buy one if I want to……just
another step to set us up for socialism control!
GNA
Subject: "WE HAVE
NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS." TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS
...
|
Monday, April 23, 2012
November Election Choice
Each person has a choice of where he gets his money.
Are you jealous of
the "rich" and feel you are entitled to take their money through help of the
federal government? If so, vote for Obama in November.
Are you looking
for an opportunity to perhaps become rich yourself? If so, vote for anyone else
in November.
The winner of
the election will be decided on whether most voters believe in limited personal
wealth through government handouts or whether most voters believe in unlimited
personal wealth through opportunity.
Saving Our Nation
You may be a believer in economic opportunity versus government handouts, but
millions of people have been indoctrinated by the federal government to believe
in a government handout philosophy, as their best chance for economic
success.
Our society is already embarked on a downward economic spiral and the death blow will be dealt in November, if the majority of voters believe in government handouts.
If you want the US to pull out of its disastrous decline and rebuild economic stability for all of its citizens, you have the responsibility to convert handout believers to opportunity believers before the November election.
Remember that Obama was elected under a program of "hope and change". This is a strong motivator and can be used again. People do not sit and dream about how they can spend more time in front of the TV. They dream about how they can be wealthy enough to own a boat, RV, take a cruise, or send their kids to college.
The sales program for the November elections must tap into those dreams for that portion of voters who are presently in the low income bracket. We know that this constitutes approximately half of all federal income tax payers.
Much present political TV programming is based upon items which appeal to middle income taxpayers. The sales points of the TV ads include reference to the candidate's educational background, previous experience in public office, traditional family values, church affiliations, etc. The non-taxpaying voters have no interest in these items, other than perhaps to be jealous of the candidate for his success.
We need a complete change in the nature of political TV programming to appeal to the non-taxpaying public. One of the political slogans of the past was "two chickens in every pot". Notice the simplicity and the universality. All people eat, and it is also a promise of wealth. It was applicable to a time in our history when hunger was rampant. This is no longer true, but the concept is still viable. Sell opportunity on the basis of what it can do for individuals. Start your own business and move up to the big time like George Jefferson, the black dry cleaner in an old TV series. Work for some other rich guy in a business where you will be paid a good salary and can buy yourself a boat or an RV. Government handouts will always keep you poor. Opportunity will allow you to use your genius and capabilities to become as rich as you would like.
Many of you just donate money to political action groups and assume that it will be properly spent. This is a copout. When you lay out money, you have the right and obligation to put limitations on how it is spent. Demand that we must deviate from standard political ads to ads that are directed to the so-called "impoverished", such that the impoverished will be convinced that their greatest advantage lies in opportunity rather than government handouts and will vote accordingly in the November election.
Our society is already embarked on a downward economic spiral and the death blow will be dealt in November, if the majority of voters believe in government handouts.
If you want the US to pull out of its disastrous decline and rebuild economic stability for all of its citizens, you have the responsibility to convert handout believers to opportunity believers before the November election.
Remember that Obama was elected under a program of "hope and change". This is a strong motivator and can be used again. People do not sit and dream about how they can spend more time in front of the TV. They dream about how they can be wealthy enough to own a boat, RV, take a cruise, or send their kids to college.
The sales program for the November elections must tap into those dreams for that portion of voters who are presently in the low income bracket. We know that this constitutes approximately half of all federal income tax payers.
Much present political TV programming is based upon items which appeal to middle income taxpayers. The sales points of the TV ads include reference to the candidate's educational background, previous experience in public office, traditional family values, church affiliations, etc. The non-taxpaying voters have no interest in these items, other than perhaps to be jealous of the candidate for his success.
We need a complete change in the nature of political TV programming to appeal to the non-taxpaying public. One of the political slogans of the past was "two chickens in every pot". Notice the simplicity and the universality. All people eat, and it is also a promise of wealth. It was applicable to a time in our history when hunger was rampant. This is no longer true, but the concept is still viable. Sell opportunity on the basis of what it can do for individuals. Start your own business and move up to the big time like George Jefferson, the black dry cleaner in an old TV series. Work for some other rich guy in a business where you will be paid a good salary and can buy yourself a boat or an RV. Government handouts will always keep you poor. Opportunity will allow you to use your genius and capabilities to become as rich as you would like.
Many of you just donate money to political action groups and assume that it will be properly spent. This is a copout. When you lay out money, you have the right and obligation to put limitations on how it is spent. Demand that we must deviate from standard political ads to ads that are directed to the so-called "impoverished", such that the impoverished will be convinced that their greatest advantage lies in opportunity rather than government handouts and will vote accordingly in the November election.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Federal Income Tax
We have recently been hearing a lot of talk in the TV news on federal income
tax. Buzz words are "pay your fair share" and "the Buffett rule".
Let's take a look at the purpose for a federal income tax. It is to pay for the cost of government! Period!. The justification is for government to obtain the funds in order to do the things that are not easily done by individual citizens. An example would be to develop, equip, and maintain a military force able to defend its citizens from foreign aggressors.
Most taxes are based upon use of a product or service. Such "use taxes" track the quantity of product or service used by an individual and charge a number of dollars accordingly. The easiest and fairest calculation is to apply a percentage on the amount used. For example, the cost of developing and maintaining a federal highway system is paid for by a percentage tax on purchased motor fuel. The rationale is that the more motor fuel one purchases, the more miles he is likely to be traveling on federal highways.
In the case of government services, it is essentially impossible to distinguish between amounts used by various individuals. For example, do I get the same amount of protection from the federal military as my neighbor? The answer is obviously "yes", and logic would say we should pay the same amount. The difficulty comes in with the fact that my neighbor makes 10 times as much annual income than I do and $1000 out of his pocket would create much less hardship for him than $1000 out of my pocket. The more extreme case is my neighbor on the other side, who can barely afford to feed his kids, and $1000 from him would put them in semi starvation.
So while we are essentially interested in obtaining money from the people in order to run the government, it is apparent that a federal income tax cannot be a fixed dollar amount for an individual. This then leads us to consideration of the percentage system.
Let's just grab 10% as a starter. Since my neighbor on the left makes $1 million per year, we will charge him $100,000 in tax. I make $100,000 per year, and we will charge me $10,000 in tax. My neighbor on the right makes $10,000 per year, and we will charge him $1000 in tax. Not really fair, is it? My neighbor on the left is paying 100 times more tax than my neighbor on the right for the same service. But another way to look at it is that the amount of pain is distributed more evenly. $100,000 from my neighbor on the left probably causes him about the same amount of pain as $1000 from my neighbor on the right.
Up to now, we have used some logic in order to come up with what may be a reasonably practical solution of financing government. But now, we get into some human aspects. Somebody jumps up and says my neighbor on the left should be paying more than my neighbor on the right. Another person responds that my neighbor on the left is already doing so; he's paying 100 times as much. The first person then says that what he means is my neighbor on the left should not be entitled to $1 million in earnings per year and government should confiscate more of it than merely a standard tax rate of 10% or $100,000. While that doesn't make any logical sense, there are a great number of people who don't make anywhere near $1 million per year and begrudge the fact that my neighbor can do it while they can't (jealousy factor or compassion?).
Now the politicians get into it. Each income earner is a voter and there are many more voters in the low income group begrudging the incomes of the higher income group. In order to hopefully reduce their own taxes, and at the same time not reduce benefits, they will vote to increase TAX RATES for the higher income people. Since the public votes its interest through the political representatives, the politicians pass laws which establish a GRADUATED INCOME TAX RATE. This is where we stand now. High income persons now pay not only a high dollar tax as compared to low income persons, but also pay significantly higher tax rates. In fact, approximately half of US taxpayers pay zero federal income tax.
We now have to consider ideology. If you believe that one's efforts should be rewarded, you likely will find the present federal income tax rates abominable. Conversely if you believe that every individual has a right to economic equality, you will likely feel that income tax rates on high income people should be further increased.
In order to resolve that dilemma we must consider another human attribute. That is, "incentive". Incentive basically means why a person will do something. Most people aspire to economic wealth, whether they are presently high income earners or low income earners. The high income earners have already established procedures whereby they justify their higher incomes through some general public accomplishment, such as making automobiles or selling groceries. In so doing, they also have developed what we call business/economic capability. That is, they have the ability to continue to grow and produce. But what if society penalizes them for their success? Will they continue to grow and produce, or will they lose incentive to switch to some other form of "entertainment", such as partying, gardening, reading, etc., all of which benefit only the individual and not society as a whole. Some say that human beings are like ants. No matter how many times one knocks down their bridge, they will rebuild it. It is likely that there is some of that aspect in a human being, so that he may strive to continue to produce, even under negative conditions of government or the people's desire, but it is more likely that as a rational organism he will follow the course of least resistance.
Conversely, low income people or a few guilt-ridden high income people most likely will continue to pursue a program of obtaining their assets from the "rich". The progressively higher tax rates on high income people will help support medical and pension benefits and in extreme cases food stamps and other "entitlements", which previously were designated as "welfare" for the poor. Since this group of "users" is already a large voting block, it will likely increase in size and ultimately evolve into a system where user demands exceed the ability of producers to produce. The mass of voters to vote more benefits at the expense of producers then becomes of no consequence and privation develops.
What is to save our society? Another aspect of incentive. Those persons who now operate in the user mode, with primary activity of obtaining benefits from the "rich", also have the ability to modify their operations to become producers themselves. It is those persons who will really decide the forthcoming election in November. They will decide whether they should have individual freedom to develop and maintain financial or other goals or whether they will continue with a user philosophy with eventual destruction of the society beyond their life terms.
Let's take a look at the purpose for a federal income tax. It is to pay for the cost of government! Period!. The justification is for government to obtain the funds in order to do the things that are not easily done by individual citizens. An example would be to develop, equip, and maintain a military force able to defend its citizens from foreign aggressors.
Most taxes are based upon use of a product or service. Such "use taxes" track the quantity of product or service used by an individual and charge a number of dollars accordingly. The easiest and fairest calculation is to apply a percentage on the amount used. For example, the cost of developing and maintaining a federal highway system is paid for by a percentage tax on purchased motor fuel. The rationale is that the more motor fuel one purchases, the more miles he is likely to be traveling on federal highways.
In the case of government services, it is essentially impossible to distinguish between amounts used by various individuals. For example, do I get the same amount of protection from the federal military as my neighbor? The answer is obviously "yes", and logic would say we should pay the same amount. The difficulty comes in with the fact that my neighbor makes 10 times as much annual income than I do and $1000 out of his pocket would create much less hardship for him than $1000 out of my pocket. The more extreme case is my neighbor on the other side, who can barely afford to feed his kids, and $1000 from him would put them in semi starvation.
So while we are essentially interested in obtaining money from the people in order to run the government, it is apparent that a federal income tax cannot be a fixed dollar amount for an individual. This then leads us to consideration of the percentage system.
Let's just grab 10% as a starter. Since my neighbor on the left makes $1 million per year, we will charge him $100,000 in tax. I make $100,000 per year, and we will charge me $10,000 in tax. My neighbor on the right makes $10,000 per year, and we will charge him $1000 in tax. Not really fair, is it? My neighbor on the left is paying 100 times more tax than my neighbor on the right for the same service. But another way to look at it is that the amount of pain is distributed more evenly. $100,000 from my neighbor on the left probably causes him about the same amount of pain as $1000 from my neighbor on the right.
Up to now, we have used some logic in order to come up with what may be a reasonably practical solution of financing government. But now, we get into some human aspects. Somebody jumps up and says my neighbor on the left should be paying more than my neighbor on the right. Another person responds that my neighbor on the left is already doing so; he's paying 100 times as much. The first person then says that what he means is my neighbor on the left should not be entitled to $1 million in earnings per year and government should confiscate more of it than merely a standard tax rate of 10% or $100,000. While that doesn't make any logical sense, there are a great number of people who don't make anywhere near $1 million per year and begrudge the fact that my neighbor can do it while they can't (jealousy factor or compassion?).
Now the politicians get into it. Each income earner is a voter and there are many more voters in the low income group begrudging the incomes of the higher income group. In order to hopefully reduce their own taxes, and at the same time not reduce benefits, they will vote to increase TAX RATES for the higher income people. Since the public votes its interest through the political representatives, the politicians pass laws which establish a GRADUATED INCOME TAX RATE. This is where we stand now. High income persons now pay not only a high dollar tax as compared to low income persons, but also pay significantly higher tax rates. In fact, approximately half of US taxpayers pay zero federal income tax.
We now have to consider ideology. If you believe that one's efforts should be rewarded, you likely will find the present federal income tax rates abominable. Conversely if you believe that every individual has a right to economic equality, you will likely feel that income tax rates on high income people should be further increased.
In order to resolve that dilemma we must consider another human attribute. That is, "incentive". Incentive basically means why a person will do something. Most people aspire to economic wealth, whether they are presently high income earners or low income earners. The high income earners have already established procedures whereby they justify their higher incomes through some general public accomplishment, such as making automobiles or selling groceries. In so doing, they also have developed what we call business/economic capability. That is, they have the ability to continue to grow and produce. But what if society penalizes them for their success? Will they continue to grow and produce, or will they lose incentive to switch to some other form of "entertainment", such as partying, gardening, reading, etc., all of which benefit only the individual and not society as a whole. Some say that human beings are like ants. No matter how many times one knocks down their bridge, they will rebuild it. It is likely that there is some of that aspect in a human being, so that he may strive to continue to produce, even under negative conditions of government or the people's desire, but it is more likely that as a rational organism he will follow the course of least resistance.
Conversely, low income people or a few guilt-ridden high income people most likely will continue to pursue a program of obtaining their assets from the "rich". The progressively higher tax rates on high income people will help support medical and pension benefits and in extreme cases food stamps and other "entitlements", which previously were designated as "welfare" for the poor. Since this group of "users" is already a large voting block, it will likely increase in size and ultimately evolve into a system where user demands exceed the ability of producers to produce. The mass of voters to vote more benefits at the expense of producers then becomes of no consequence and privation develops.
What is to save our society? Another aspect of incentive. Those persons who now operate in the user mode, with primary activity of obtaining benefits from the "rich", also have the ability to modify their operations to become producers themselves. It is those persons who will really decide the forthcoming election in November. They will decide whether they should have individual freedom to develop and maintain financial or other goals or whether they will continue with a user philosophy with eventual destruction of the society beyond their life terms.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Ousting Pres. Obama
There are
two ways to unseat Pres. Obama. Both require the November elections.
If another candidate wins the Presidency, Obama is automatically out in January.
If Obama is reelected, but Republicans take control of the Senate and maintain control of the House, Pres. Obama can be impeached. Impeachment will involve a trial concerning whether he is qualified to be President. I recently heard a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded), in which Pres. Obama admitted that he is not a natural born citizen, which is required by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore,a trial will likely result in a conviction, which is an automatic discharge from office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
