Affordable Boat Act

    One of our Political Advisers has written in "tongue-in-cheek" description of a fictitious Affordable Boat Act. It is as follows:

"Subject: The Affordable Boat Act"

    "The U.S. government has just passed a new law called: "The Affordable Boat Act" declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat, by April 2014. These "affordable" boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance or repair costs.
    This law was passed, because until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new law ensures that every American can now have an "affordable" boat of his own, because everyone is "entitled" to a new boat.
    If you purchase your boat before the end of the year, you will receive 4 "free" life jackets; not including monthly usage fees. In order to make sure everyone purchases an affordable boat, the costs of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don't want or can't afford to maintain. But to be fair, people who cant afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents boats to party on until they turn 27; then must purchase their own boat.
    If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can't). If you don't want or don't need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or cant afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one or face imprisonment. Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the desert; ghettos; inner cities or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge nor lack of desire are acceptable excuses for not using your boat. A government review board (that doesn't know the difference between the port, starboard or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including; when, where, how often, and for what purposes you can use your boat along with how many people can ride your boat and determine if one is too old or not healthy enough to be able to use his boat. They will also decide if your boat has out-lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories,(like a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat. Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so...its only fair. The government will also decide the name for each boat.
    Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment. Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free, at the expense of tax payers. unions, bankers and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.
    If the government can force you to buy health care [insurance], they can force you to buy a boat....or ANYTHING else.. Yea...it's that stupid."

Election Strategy for the Republican Leadership

Open Email to the Republican Leadership:

Dear Republican Leadership,
    Learn from history! We've just finished a gubernatorial race in Virginia. McAuliffe (Democrat) one with a vote of 47.9%. Cuccinelli (Republican) obtained 45.5% of the of the vote. Libertarian Sarvis obtain 6.6% of the vote.
    To develop a proper strategy for Republicans to win elections, we have to understand some of the basic characteristics of the electorate.
    Many voting Democrats are what Rush Limbaugh calls "low information voters". In other words, they are not concerned with the details of issues. They vote straight along party lines as Democrats. If Hitler were running as a Democrat, they would probably vote for him. They are unwavering in their resolve and are united by the party. A Democrat will vote for another Democrat at least 99% of the time.
    Conversely, Republicans tend to have higher education, which leads them to the deficiency of studying various issues. If the Republican Party seems to have an issue in its platform, which is contrary to an individual Republican's belief, he will relatively easily switch allegiance to a group which seems more amenable to his beliefs. The only other political party is Libertarian. Within the Libertarian group, many more have a Republican mindset than a Democratic mindset.
    The strategy for Republicans winning elections is then obvious. DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO AVOID HAVING A LIBERTARIAN OR ANY OTHER PARTY CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT. With only a choice of voting Democrat or Republican, Libertarians will usually vote Republican.    In the Virginia gubernatorial election, Libertarians obtained 6.6% of the vote. If there had been no Libertarian candidate, probably 80% of those people would have voted Republican. 80% of 6.6% is 5.3%. If you add that 5.3% to Cuccinelli, he would have had 50.8% of the vote. If you add the remaining 1.3% to McAuliffe, he would have had 49.2% of the vote. Cuccinelli would have won! 

Who Really Are Republicans and Democrats?

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    In recent years, we have had within the federal government some rather extreme differences of opinion on the responsibilities of the federal government and how it should operate. Democrats and Republicans are at extreme odds in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In addition, the Republicans are at extreme odds with the Administration, represented by Pres. Obama. Various terms, such as liberals, conservatives capitalists, communists, and socialists, are bandied about. In many cases, there seems to be no understanding of what these terms mean. We also have the case, where Pres. Obama has not declared himself with any particular designation, but has consistently claimed only that he is for change. He has also been consistent in applying governmental regulations consistent with change.
    It Is my intention in this writing to perhaps shed some light on the ideological beliefs of individual and group, through understanding the definitions of various political and economic terms. I concentrate on beliefs, because they are the controlling factors that lead to action.
    For starters, I will say that I am a liberal. With that statement, many will immediately also classify me as a Democrat, Communist, or Socialist. However, that is not the case.

LIBERALISM
     WordNet has two definitions for liberalism; a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution; and an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market. Many will jump on that to say that it sounds like capitalism.

CAPITALISM    WordNet says capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital. Well then, since I am a believer in private ownership of capital, it appears that my political and economic orientation is both liberal and capitalistic. With that orientation, I would obviously want my government run on the basis of private ownership of capital, reform by changing laws, in a society of free competition and a self-regulating market.

SOCIALISM    But what if I thought I was a socialist? WordNet says socialism is an economic system based on state ownership of capital. Since I believe in private ownership of capital, I obviously can't be a socialist.

COMMUNISM    What if I thought I was a communist? WordNet says communism is a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership and favors collectivism in a classless society. I don't understand "collectivism", so we check WordNet, which says it is a political theory that the people should own the means of production. Since I believe in private ownership of capital, I can't be a communist. I also don't understand "classless society". WordNet has no definition, so we go to Merriam-Webster. It doesn't define classless society, but does consider "classless" as not grouping people according to their social or economic level. This appears to mean that in Communism there are no well educated persons versus poorly educated persons nor rich persons versus poor persons. Again, since I believe educational level is based upon effort, which is variable among people, and also that persons should have an opportunity to become rich through their own efforts, I obviously can't be a communist.

    Notice that I have covered only liberalism, capitalism, socialism, and communism. I have up to now dodged the basic discord in the federal government, which involves conflict between Republicans, Democrats, and a basically non-defining President. We might then try to get some definitions for those groups to see how they might fit into any of our previously considered groups.

REPUBLICAN    WordNet says a Republican is a member of the Republican Party, but a republican (note lowercase) is also an advocate of a republic, which is a form of government. But, what is a republic? WordNet says that a republic is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
   
DEMOCRAT
     WordNet says a Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party and an advocate of democratic principles. But what are "democratic principles"?. WordNet has nothing to say on that, but Democracy Web says . The rule of law could be defined as the subjugation of state power to a country's constitution and laws, which had been established or adopted through popular consent. The rule of law is the supreme check on political power used against people's rights. Without the regulation of state power by a system of laws, procedures, and courts, democracy could not survive. Law should be supreme to the capricious authority of any individual.


        Well, that is a surprise. Here I am; now a Republican AND a Democrat, because I believe in "supreme power lying in the body of citizens who can elect people to represent them " and also "constitutional limits on power with adherence to the rule of law".
        But if US Republicans and US Democrats, have the same beliefs as the definitions, why are they at each other's throats? Perhaps it is because one or the other has changed its beliefs so that. It no longer conforms to the definition.

CHANGED REPUBLICANS?    Is it the Republicans who have changed?. It doesn't seem so. By their actions, they still seem to believe that "the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them". This translated means that the citizens hold the power and elect House Representatives and Senators to represent them. The Republicans do not seem to be doing a masterful job in representing the citizens, as they feather their nests for reelection, but it is an extremely difficult job, because of large divisions  in the desires of the citizens themselves.

CHANGED IT DEMOCRATS?     Is it the Democrats who have changed? It seems that it might be. By definition, they are supposed to advocate democratic principles, which are intimately tied into the rule of law. Remember also it is said that democracy could not survive without the regulation of state power by a system of laws, procedures, and courts. The definition also said that law should be supreme to the capricious authority of any individual. As we look at the actions of Democrats, we see that they apparently turn a blind eye toward the Obama Administration's lack of law enforcement, such as immigration control. They similarly turn a blind eye toward Obama's various executive orders, the latest of which is forcing expenditure of taxpayer funds for protection against climate change and for which Congress has shown no similar agreement.

SUMMARY
     In summary, it appears that Democrats have changed their beliefs and actions over many years to arrive at a position which is now inconsistent with the original definition of a Democrat. In fact, the record shows that Democrats have moved toward an economic system based on state ownership of capital (Socialism) and abolishment of private ownership and the favoring of collectivism in a classless society (Communism).

What Motivates Obama?

     One of our Political Advisers asked me, "Why is the president trying to destroy the country? Did the free education he got help?
I replied as follows:

"I can only give you an opinion.
I don't believe that Pres. Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the United States. He's doing so as a consequence of his pursuit to a higher order.
Pres. Obama is not a person of true American background, as are you and me
He was born in. Hawaii 1961. It was a mixed marriage, with his mother as a Kansan and his father as a Kenyan. The mother divorced the Kenyan in 1964, so that Obama had only three years of life with his father in Hawaii. Don't look at Hawaii in the context of tourism. It is a place of mixed social systems. Refer to the TV series "Hawaii Five O".
The mother remarried to an Indonesian in 1965, and Obama stayed with his mother's parents in Hawaii for two years. She brought him from Hawaii to Indonesia in 1967. He was then six years old. In 1967, Indonesia was a third world country of significant poverty mostly populated with Muslims. His mother was presumably in Indonesia to "do good", since she later obtained a PhD in anthropology.
In 1971, after four years in Indonesia, he returned to the supervision of his maternal grandparents in Hawaii and entered a prestigious private school at the fifth grade level. Notice that he was then 10 years old and had spent those formative years in exposure to the problems of impoverished countries and the probable Communist/Socialist teachings of an intelligent mother.
I'll guess that his free education led him to the belief that he was lucky and realized that most people of the world are not so lucky, and he must personally do something for them. Unfortunately, this will require taking away much of the lifestyle of Americans to properly redistribute it to other peoples of the world."

National Security Agency (NSA) Procedure

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    Thank you for your form letter concerning operations of the National Security Agency (NSA).
    You said you support programs that can detect impending threats to our homeland or diplomatic and military facilities abroad, but that we must strike an appropriate balance between remaining vigilant against terrorism and protecting the civil liberties guaranteed to the American people by the Constitution.

    Well said, and I agree wholeheartedly!
    However, when government does something, it usually does it to excess. The action of the NSA is a case in point.
    The NSA has no justification for collecting phone records of all phone calls of US citizens. Presumably, the NSA takes the attitude that every US citizen is a potential terrorist. While there is a semblance of logic in that position, it does not meet the logical standards of probability. For that reason, I am adding adamantly opposed to the NSA collecting telephone information, not only on me but every other US person in the US, unless the NSA has some other justification. "Other justification" could be information provided by foreign governments, by our own CIA through interrogation of known terrorist suspects, etc. In other words, collection of telephone information should be based upon the names of specific individuals, who are suspect and whose suspicion has been developed from other sources. Without that limitation, the NSA is imposing on the civil liberties guaranteed to the American people by the Constitution, and as a Senator you should be vigorously objecting.

Illegal Immigration

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    Thank you for your form letter on Immigration. You presumably sent this in response to something I had sent you, but I don't recall having written on immigration. However, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments.
    It is interesting that for almost 200 years illegal immigration was not an issue in the US. Only within the last 10 years or so have politicians discovered that it can be used as a political tool to improve their chances for reelection.
    For most of US history, immigrants came to the US seeking freedom and prosperity, as you mentioned. Conversely, US immigration authorities worked on the principle of what the immigrant could contribute to the US. Did he have a job to go to? Did he have relatives or friends who would give him support? Did he have any other means of subsistence. Was he healthy enough to work? And, a few similar questions. People who looked sick, coughed, or had any other symptoms of disease were rejected, and that meant sent back to where they came from.    During some periods of US history, US immigration authorities also allowed a considerable influx of immigrants from a particular country, based on the fact that local conditions in their home country had changed to the extent that they were being persecuted. An example of this was the period of Cuban immigration, after Castro had seized power and established a socialistic government. Cuban immigrants at that time essentially met all US previous immigration qualifications. Your father was among them. He was never a drain on the US economy and made a valuable contribution to the US with your birth and education.
    Conversely, the political opportunism of Pres. Obama and Democrats has allowed entrance of a huge number of illegal immigrants to the US. Because they were not screened in the traditional manner, many of them are indigent in attitude and general mentality, although they were sufficiently physically capable to enter the US under subterfuge. Many also meet the traditional requirements for previous controlled immigration, even though they were not subjected to screening. This results in a mixed bag, with great difficulty in deciding what to do. We have a tremendous number on handouts and a tremendous number making contributions. While the balance is favorable to Democrats, because of previously mentioned votes, it is not good for the country.
    I agree with you on your opposition to Democrat generated immigration bills, which attempt to maintain for Democrats the probability of increased votes to remain in office. I also sympathize with you in your attempts to develop a workable procedure for the proper handling of illegal immigrants. I have no specific suggestions other than to point out that the main problem is the illegal immigration. Previous regulation of immigration worked satisfactorily for a great number of years. We only need to return to that and somehow eliminate the subsequent political adulteration which led to the poor situation in which we now find ourselves.

Al Qaeda in Syria

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    The Washington Times says Syria has become Al Qaeda's largest safe haven with more than 10,000 fighters. This provides Al Qaeda with a new base to attract recruits to its jihadist doctrine and from which to attack the US.
    For those who don't normally follow terrorist activities, I remind you that Al Qaeda is a political organization responsible for the 9/11 disaster in New York, which destroyed the twin towers and killed several thousand people. I specify "political organization", because it is not confined to the geographical boundaries of countries. It is a segment within many countries. Jihadism is a religious term, with various interpretations. Extreme jihadists have an objective to kill those who they believe are detrimental to Islam. Extreme jihadists are the fundamental part of Al Qaeda and a declared enemy of the US.
    Just why Syria has become a new home for Al Qaeda is not clear. We can speculate that they are being solicited by either the Syrian government or the rebels, or have just infiltrated in the vacuum created by the Civil War.
     Because Al Qaeda has declared war against the US by its physical actions, such as the 9/11 attack, the US must respond. It can do so by resisting any further attacks against US citizens in the homeland, and/or preferentially, it can attack the enemy at its sources. Al Qaeda bases exist in various countries. At each base, it has a physical collection of administrative personnel, training recruits, and weapons accumulation. The most efficient way to control Al Qaeda is at those sources. Let us also be specific, that in such control, the US would not be engaged in an aggressive war, but rather in defense.
     It is said that the US cannot properly engage in this war of defense because of self-imposed limitations. The US cannot use drones without violating Syrian acid-base and it cannot deploy special operations forces in the country without joining in escalating the war.
    That is so much baloney! Syria is in turmoil, but there are clearly two interested parties. The US must say to the existing Syrian government and to the rebels that it expects them to expel all Al Qaeda operations in Syria within a month. If the US determines unilaterally that that has not been done, it will use its own countermeasures of drones and special forces to do the job. It will in no way be involving itself in the Syrian Civil War, but will be attacking only criminal forces in that country, which it perceives are a physical danger to US citizens.
    In addition, this should be the US policy in its defensive war against Al Qaeda anywhere in the world. Any regime or rebel organization in any country containing an Al Qaeda group will be perceived as harboring Al Qaeda. However, the subsequent US action will not be against the harboring country or rebel group, but rather only against Al Qaeda.