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.
Friday, July 30, 2010
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?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Obama Administration Threatening BP for Criminal Liability
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Opens Criminal Inquiry Into Oil Spill. The Obama administration said that it had begun civil and criminal investigations into the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, as the deepening crisis threatened to define President Obama's second year in office. (nytimes.com)".
How ridiculous can this Obama Administration be? They need BP's cooperation in capping the oil gusher. Does, threatening someone with dire consequences whether they cooperate or not lead to increased cooperation? Anybody with an ounce of experience in dealing with people including children, very well knows that it does not.
Here is an example. We capture an Al Qaeda operative. We say to him, "Tell us all you know, before we kill you". Do you really think he will spill his guts?
EIN News says, "U.S. Opens Criminal Inquiry Into Oil Spill. The Obama administration said that it had begun civil and criminal investigations into the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, as the deepening crisis threatened to define President Obama's second year in office. (nytimes.com)".
How ridiculous can this Obama Administration be? They need BP's cooperation in capping the oil gusher. Does, threatening someone with dire consequences whether they cooperate or not lead to increased cooperation? Anybody with an ounce of experience in dealing with people including children, very well knows that it does not.
Here is an example. We capture an Al Qaeda operative. We say to him, "Tell us all you know, before we kill you". Do you really think he will spill his guts?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Selling the U.S. to an International Conglomerate
E-Mail to Congress:
The Obama Administration is selling the U.S. to an international conglomerate.
If you don't want to see your country disappear as an independent entity, you may want to do something about it.
I worked 37 years for the Rohm & Haas Company. It was a large Chemical Company, which has now disappeared into Dow.
As the international conglomerate takes over the U.S., the best we could hope for is a subservatory position, such as the States now have in the U.S. hierarchy. We are seeing recently that State power is overshadowed by Federal power, when push comes to shove. The Feds have the power of the purse to print money and dole it out to the States as largess. Those who control the purse strings also control every other aspect of freedom. When the European Union was established as socialistic entity, the first action was to eliminate individual country's currency. and set up an international Euro.
I personally like our country. It's previous record of accomplishments has been unsurpassed by any other country. That record results from a combination of many factors, including primarily the Constitution, which guarantees personal freedoms and economic opportunity. Previous and current Administrations and Congress have been hacking away at the Constitution for so many years so that our present government is hardly recognizable from the original constitutional intent.
It is granted that all things must evolve through time, but there is variability. In a socialistic state, someone who steals from another person is no longer a thief, since all property is government owned. How far can that be extended? Can one person take the life of another? In absolute socialism, persons are also property of the State. Therefore, the concept of murder ceases to exist.
Is it reasonable for us to be traveling down that road? If not, now is the time to put a stop to it. Decrease the power of Federal Government by shrinking its size, which automatically reduces the negative things that a Federal Government can do.
The Obama Administration is selling the U.S. to an international conglomerate.
If you don't want to see your country disappear as an independent entity, you may want to do something about it.
I worked 37 years for the Rohm & Haas Company. It was a large Chemical Company, which has now disappeared into Dow.
As the international conglomerate takes over the U.S., the best we could hope for is a subservatory position, such as the States now have in the U.S. hierarchy. We are seeing recently that State power is overshadowed by Federal power, when push comes to shove. The Feds have the power of the purse to print money and dole it out to the States as largess. Those who control the purse strings also control every other aspect of freedom. When the European Union was established as socialistic entity, the first action was to eliminate individual country's currency. and set up an international Euro.
I personally like our country. It's previous record of accomplishments has been unsurpassed by any other country. That record results from a combination of many factors, including primarily the Constitution, which guarantees personal freedoms and economic opportunity. Previous and current Administrations and Congress have been hacking away at the Constitution for so many years so that our present government is hardly recognizable from the original constitutional intent.
It is granted that all things must evolve through time, but there is variability. In a socialistic state, someone who steals from another person is no longer a thief, since all property is government owned. How far can that be extended? Can one person take the life of another? In absolute socialism, persons are also property of the State. Therefore, the concept of murder ceases to exist.
Is it reasonable for us to be traveling down that road? If not, now is the time to put a stop to it. Decrease the power of Federal Government by shrinking its size, which automatically reduces the negative things that a Federal Government can do.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Socialists Do Not Believe in Private Property Ownership
E-Mail to talk show host Mike McConnell:
I was listening this morning to your explanation of Senator Rand Paul's position on civil rights, for which he has recently been chastised.
You were making the point that there is a difference between private and government establishments. Government has no right to control membership and admission of private clubs or businesses.
During that section, you also had a phone conversation with a socialist caller, which seemed to go nowhere.
I now make a suggestion of the major reason why there is wide divergence of opinion on the part of the public concerning this issue.
SOCIALISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE CONCEPT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. For Socialists which are now generally Democrats, private property does not exist. All property belongs either to the state (socialism) or to the people (communism).
As long as socialist Democrats maintain this position, there is no basis of discussion along the line of differentiating between government controlled and private controlled property. I suggest you should have called the telephone caller a socialist and say also that you don't discuss the misguided merits of socialism at this time.
I was listening this morning to your explanation of Senator Rand Paul's position on civil rights, for which he has recently been chastised.
You were making the point that there is a difference between private and government establishments. Government has no right to control membership and admission of private clubs or businesses.
During that section, you also had a phone conversation with a socialist caller, which seemed to go nowhere.
I now make a suggestion of the major reason why there is wide divergence of opinion on the part of the public concerning this issue.
SOCIALISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE CONCEPT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. For Socialists which are now generally Democrats, private property does not exist. All property belongs either to the state (socialism) or to the people (communism).
As long as socialist Democrats maintain this position, there is no basis of discussion along the line of differentiating between government controlled and private controlled property. I suggest you should have called the telephone caller a socialist and say also that you don't discuss the misguided merits of socialism at this time.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Ethnic Groups Need to Assimilate in America
E-mail to Rep. Randy Neugebauer:
Good job on continuing to save money by shrinking government!
I can understand your catering to unions (teachers) and Hispanics (Cinco de Mayo) as a need to not shuck off votes. However, I think you need to walk a fine line.
The fact is that the Teachers Union already has too much power in minimizing efficient education in our schools and having exorbitant pension benefits.
Hispanics should be considered part of Americans. We don't cater to Italians, Syrians, Bulgarians, British, etc.. They need to assimilate into our society as previous ethnic groups have done. Maintaining ethnic division in the country is bad for its development. When we celebrate ethnic holidays, or even recognize them, we do damage to our society.
Good job on continuing to save money by shrinking government!
I can understand your catering to unions (teachers) and Hispanics (Cinco de Mayo) as a need to not shuck off votes. However, I think you need to walk a fine line.
The fact is that the Teachers Union already has too much power in minimizing efficient education in our schools and having exorbitant pension benefits.
Hispanics should be considered part of Americans. We don't cater to Italians, Syrians, Bulgarians, British, etc.. They need to assimilate into our society as previous ethnic groups have done. Maintaining ethnic division in the country is bad for its development. When we celebrate ethnic holidays, or even recognize them, we do damage to our society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
