Speriamo

Capitalism from the Brilliant Mind of a Brit…

2010-11-23T18:30:00.000-08:00

Introduction:

The link below was sent to me by a friend of many years. Of all his great accomplishments throughout the years, the least is his inability to see the Liberal/Socialist/Progressives for what they are - a group dedicated to changing our system of government, disregarding our Constitution, and substituting an anarchist/Marxist regime. Said regime would right the entire world’s unbalances by “sharing the wealth”, or more interestingly by doing away with wealth, and destroying the engine that allows one to become wealthy. That engine is Capitalism.

I seldom, if ever, include video or links in my pieces. There are so many available on the Internet that it is hard to decide what one would best fit the theme of an article. In this case, however, the idea for the article came because the friend mentioned above sent the link below to me along with a brief message that read: “As the subject [line] states…this is brilliant…enjoy and share…”

The Subject line read: FW: Interesting (iconoclastic, irreverent, creative, entertaining, heuristic, provocative, challenging) take on capitalism and the world economic crisis... (from the U.K.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=channel

I suppose I should have been wary of the way Capitalism would be treated given that the UK is basically a Socialist County, rapidly becoming a Theocracy. However, I watched the video, and was amazed at how such a “cute” cartoon presentation could be so lean in the careful analysis and conclusion area. I started to respond to the email with a few lines of analysis, and soon I had a page of analysis [I publish it here for your perusal, and comment.]

Response:

Thank you for sending the video.

One can never read too much Hayek or Adam Smith for that matter.

The problem with all of these presentations is that they are simplistic, not necessarily unbiased, and never suggest a system that works better, or for that matter a solution. His talking points are old, and never seem to get past the nagging phase, and do not introduce any new arguments. The real talent here was that of the cartoonist.

You and I should know better than most that a failure of a system node does not mean that the system is necessarily faulty. To be incredibly simplistic, one could say that flight itself is a failure because in the last month two major crashes have taken many hundreds of lives. Engine failures that were caught "just in time" saved hundreds more. In these cases something went wrong, and most likely someone did not do his or her job. Alternatively, inherent in any human endeavor is fault. All systems will eventually fail. This computer that I am using will one day betray me and fail - causing me to lose a great deal of data and a fair amount of time. Does that mean that the entire computerized gestalt we live in is a poorly designed and overly utilized system? Not necessarily.

In a nutshell, Capitalism is a system of earning and distributing wealth through the creation of goods and services. In doing that, some become quite wealthy, others never do. I believe that those that don't are not victims of anything but their own personalities and actions. I believe by a simple code in that regard: "There are no victims."

I lost a great deal of money due to the machinations of Greenspan, and what those machinations did to markets - all markets. That's not Capitalism's fault, that is my fault for not acting with alacrity and doing more personal research. When Carter started the "everyone should own a home" thing, millions of smart investors should have said, that's not possible. Instead millions bought and sold homes to great advantage. Unfortunately they sold them to many who could not afford them, so banks failed, developers failed, homeowners failed, and systems failed. Each system failure has its starting point not with a Machiavellian plot, but with an error of judgment, or an error due not to human evil, but to simply being human and prone to error. Each failure must be accompanied by a self examination that amounts to taking responsibility for what one does or does not do in response to a system failure. If the current head of the Federal Reserve is a financial idiot - which I believe - then I need to acknowledge that, and take steps to protect myself and my family. To do otherwise is simply to lay the framework for laying blame on "The System" - whatever that system is.

I suggest a very nice little book that takes a different tact on money and budgets - after all, Capitalism is about money and budgets, and greed and stupidity, and humans ignoring the fact that the latter two are far more important than anything. The book is: "Economics in One Lesson", Henry Hazlitt, Three rivers Press NY, 1979. Additionally, if you are so inclined to understand more than the cartoon approach to Capitalism, try "Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to Understanding the Economy." by Thomas Sowell, Basic Books; Rev Exp edition (December 23, 2003).

Alternatively to understand why it is not possible to pit one system against the other in any meaningful way most of the time is to be found in "The Logic of Modern Physics", by P. W. Bridgman, Macmillan Paperbacks, 1960, wherein Dr. Bridgman suggests that many questions are meaningless questions, and to pursue them is a waste of time. Since one can never look at a phenomenon like Capitalism and compare it to other systems in real time, i.e. at the same moment, in the same place to pursue this type of question is to pursue a philosophical matter, not something that has any basis in fact. That defines most academics.

Mr. Harvey is an academic. Remember the old adage "Those who can do, those that can't teach." To wit: Mr. Harvey stated that wages have not increased for quite some time, and that is the fault of greedy Capitalists. Wrong. Let me tell you about reality. Our company (HCDS) hired and paid 150 employees each month. Each year the personnel budget increased substantially. Were we increasing wages? Not very much. So what were we spending the money on? Government mandates that's what. Increased Social Security, increased Medicare, Increased California taxes, increased unemployment insurance, increased government demanded audits of personnel records, etc.

Mr. Harvey mentions "Greedy Capitalists" as one causes of economic failure. Yes, there certainly are greedy Capitalists, but there are also Greedy Russian Communists (Lukoil's billionaire owner & Putin to name two.), Greedy Chinese Communists (Try the one who gambles and loses $25,000,000 each year at the MGM Grand - personal communication), and Greedy Socialists - i.e. George Soros.)

While Mr. Harvey seems to want to promote Marxism, he fails to mention that it was tried, and it has failed miserably. You are old enough to remember the Russian food lines, the search for toilet paper, the need for heating fuel that only the rich Russians got, etc. Perhaps Mr. Harvey has never read Einstein's definition of insanity!

So yes David the presentation is iconoclastic, irreverent, creative, entertaining, heuristic, provocative, & challenging, but it is also Communist, & Socialist, Academic pap. This man has never had to meet a payroll, develop a budget, been made to stick to that budget, and survive in the face of the economic down turns that all systems of finance undergo.

Nice try - Entertaining but not terribly effective. I think that this lecture could just as well have been entitled "Class Warfare - Cartoon Version".

Thus far I have not received a response from my friend. I have a vague feeling that I shall not.

November 23, 2010

Dead People Walking...

2010-11-11T15:34:00.000-08:00

Before beginning to write about my take on what has become known as ObamaCare, I need to make it clear that the notion of writing an article about this topic was catalyzed by an article written by Bob Webster, Editor of WebCommentary.com. After reading Bob’s Article, and viewing the included videos several times, I realized that we are all Dead People Walking if this criminal act is allowed to stand.

The salient points of one of the videos reduce to the bulleted points below. I realize that the health care bill is incredibly large, not well written and contains thousands of inaccuracies and faulty budgetary and health care projections. My goal here is not to enumerate every one of those but to “cherry pick” a few of the most onerous. I do this to make a point. To wit:

· Health care will be rationed. Single folks limited to $5000, and couples to $10,000.

· A government committee will determine levels of care – not your physician.

· A Health Care Commissioner chooses the appropriate health care option.

· A Health Care Exchange will be established and will be government controlled.

· Should anyone choose not to enroll in a health care plan, he or she will be taxed an additional 2.5%.

· The government health care minions will have access to all personal health care and financial records. [Illegal search and seizure anyone?]

· All care will be rationed, especially in those areas that are expensive to treat, i.e. cancer.

· All health care provided will be subjected to outcome measures that are defined by the government, not your doctor.

· Special needs patients will receive government determined care, for government determined periods.

· The elderly and the poor will be subjected to a Tele-Health care committee examination of their needs, and the committee will determine same.

· End of life services will be government controlled.

· Living wills and directives shall be approved by the government.

These are but a few of the problems identified in Bob’s article. Even though the above list paraphrases them egregiously, they are still pretty accurate as well as frightening. What can be done? I have pondered much that has been written and proposed by politicians opposed to ObamaCare, by elected Tea Party Candidates, and by Republican leaders. Given my age and my experience with politicians, I am not terribly sanguine about major changes, nor am I comfortable that the (new) leadership will have the intestinal fortitude to rescind the law.

If most of the tenets of this law are upheld, we – the people – are all either now, or in the near future, Dead People Walking. What do I mean by that? Before getting into that lets take a brief look at some readily available statistics about health care in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the United Kingdom. The data provide a bit of context without becoming a treatise on statistics, and statistical analysis. As with all statistics, there is generally more to the story than the numbers and even those are often contested. For example, the three illustrations from Investor’s Business Daily data below are considered meaningless by some, but not others. These data are not terribly different from similar data from other sources. The difficulty in comparing such data is that the study years, the population, the analytical methods and the political implications are usually not known. That in itself is instructive, but a topic for another day.

Source: Investor’s Business Daily

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S - 65%; England - 46%; Canada- 42%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S.- 90% ; England - 15%; Canada - 43%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. - 93%; England - 15%; Canada - 43%

Lancet Oncology – a much respected Journal, offers this analysis when comparing Cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States. [Ardunio Verdecchia et al,”Recent Cancer Survival in Europe, 2000-2002 Period, Analysis of EUROCARE-2 Data” Lancet Oncology, 2007]

This analysis demonstrated that American men enjoy five year cancer survival rates of 66% and woman survive at a 63% rate. European Men’s survival rate is 47%. Only women of three countries - Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland enjoy a five year survival rate of 60%. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

Canadian men and women fare a bit better with 58% of women surviving cancer by 5 years. The men’s survival rate is 53%. [These data are from a 2001-2003 study by June and David O’Neill of the USA Congressional Budget Office.]

The National Center for Policy Analysis [http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649] in an article entitled “10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care” offers the following as one of the 10 indicated points:

Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

I could provide more statistics, more studies and more opinions, but will not. We could analyze the methodology, vis-à-vis how these data were gathered, and examined, the conclusions vis-à-vis outcomes, cost to benefit analyses and other conclusions about various care systems. That may be an interesting and enjoyable exercise, but is beyond the scope of this article. We would be Dead People Walking if ObamaCare is implemented not because statistically we would most likely slide into the mediocrity of our Canadian and European cousins, but because we would forfeit our freedom of choice, our privacy, our independence and our health to an overarching bureaucracy. Imagine these same people providing health care services to three hundred million American citizens as well as millions of illegals. England with a population of 51 million, and Canada with a population of 34 million are unable to manage their systems, and provide the equivalent of our health care services. We believe that health care in the United States should be improved, and made more efficient, and less costly. We need to work on that, but not at the price of our freedoms, and our sanity.

ObamaCare may be the full employment act for an entire new cadre of government bureaucrats who will determine how our care is rationed. It will not be a good thing for American patients needing a physician. A recent Survey by the AMA (American Medical Association) indicated that as many as 46% of all practicing physicians will leave the medical field if ObamaCare is implemented. Given the estimated 32 million new patients that ObamaCare shall allegedly attract, who will treat them? In fact, if physicians, and most likely other medical professionals, leave the field, who would treat the existing patient load, let alone 32 million new patients? Where will these patients be treated? Emergency rooms, hospitals and medical clinics will be overrun with patients who need treatment by a physician, not a non-medically trained government employee.

A rejoinder may be that the government will hire as many physicians and health professionals as necessary to provide care. Many professionals including doctors, nurses, physicians assistants, nurse practitioners, etc. will simply not want to work in a rule bound, overregulated health care system where efficient and effective patient care, as determined by the attending professional, is the exception rather than the rule.

If we are not in control of our own destinies, and can no longer make personal decisions about our health care, our physicians, our health care plans, we have lost control over most of what is important to us – life. We are no more able to control how we care for ourselves than the proverbial fatted calves. We will, as we age, be Soylent Green material, and will be cast on the dung heap of those not worth the effort, or the funds necessary, to keep us alive. (Illegal immigrants excepted) If we are no more than a ratio of cost to age, and fail to meet whatever is determined to be in the appropriate cost to age benefit cohort – the one that dictates we are “OK to treat”, what are we? Dispensable, that’s what.

If we can come to terms with being Dispensable, we can then plan how we will live. Any reasonable person knows that we cannot stop aging, regardless of how we try to maintain good health and a positive approach to advancing years. (For those who are many years younger than me – you too will be old one day – God willing.)

Currently, how do we care for ourselves and try to maintain good health? We eat well, we exercise, and we stop smoking if we did. We drink moderately, and we take a fair share of vitamins and supplements. If we are diagnosed with a disease, we visit our health care providers, and we adhere to the treatment regimen that has been recommended. We drive carefully, we don’t do illegal drugs, and we stay away from places that are likely to impair our health.

If a healthy 73 year old breaks a hip, some high grade dull normal in Washington will divide the cost of care by the age, and decree that my care will be too expensive, and that the costs to care for an old person would be better spent on a teenager who broke a hip while drag racing. After all, he or she has a lot of taxpaying years ahead of him or her. A 73 year old has relatively few.

Prior to ObamaCare taking good care of oneself was reasonable. Now, given that some nameless bureaucrat will be suggesting – nay not suggesting but stipulating treatments, stipulating costs, stipulating medical venues, and then finally “approving” our living wills, why in hell should we bother to take care of ourselves? What would the point be? If we are to die at the hands of our government, why not live like there is no tomorrow?

So from now on, I will have bacon and eggs for breakfast each day, buy a Harley, drink more wine, eat more fat rich, and more flavorful salted foods, lie around the yard and soak up the cancer causing sun, buy a Porsche, and drive the way I really would like to drive, go on hunting trips that require a degree of risk, fly more, sail more and spend my money before the government gets it. Why not? As a Dead Person Walking, it does not matter anymore. In fact a quick death in an airline accident – while traveling to some exotic destination - would be far more enjoyable than being left to rot while a Washington bureaucrat decides what to do with me.

ObamaCare, with its Health Care Commissions and Health care Czars have given me permission to live life as if every day is the last, because if they have anything to do with it, it soon will be!

November 2010

The Yoke of Political Correctness...

2009-12-30T09:45:00.000-08:00

There is no cogent reason why political correctness exists. The entire notion smacks of hypocrisy, guilt, and a misguided sense of fairness that promotes an insidious false sense of “doing things right”. For reasons not easily explained it has become the sine qua non of fairness in the United States. Actually, most politically correct actions, laws, regulations and stipulations do not reflect anything but someone’s – usually a very liberal someone – idea of what the world should be like. Because they believe that their view of what the world ought to be like, they incrementally change the paradigms of our American culture to reflect that belief.

For example, in a politically correct world there are no Mexican gangs, no Black gangs, no gangs at all that reflect a specific minority. To label gangs as such is unfair, demeaning and politically incorrect. As someone who has a fair amount of experience working with gangs, I can state categorically that Black gangs, White gangs, Mexican gangs, and Asian gangs, among others, do exist, and they are proud of their ethnicity. There is also another gang, rather recently developed and fairly well organized. It is Al Qaeda, and it is a Muslim gang.

Years ago – not really all that long ago actually – it was easy to determine what type of gang one was investigating. Police rounded up suspects from specific areas and questioned them. If the suspects were Mexican and the city was Los Angeles, one went to East Los Angeles neighborhoods and took likely culprits into custody for questioning. There was little reason to go into Watts. Ditto in New York. If a Black gang was active the police went to Harlem. Same reason.

How did the police know where to go? Profiling. The police had gang profiles established and if a gang-banger fit the profile he or she was picked up. Profiling saved a lot of time and a lot of lives. Now it is not accepted practice to profile suspects. Why change something that worked, and has worked for centuries? Political correctness advocates did it.

It became unfair to look for specific ethnic groups, and develop a profile that fit the modus operandi of the crime committed. After all, establishing a profile that reflected the input of victims would be unfair to the perpetrator. How so, you may ask? We are not indicting all Blacks (Mexican, Asians, Whites, Italians) when we establish a profile. We are gathering objective data that provides clues to the type of person that might actually have committed the crime. Are we not using these data to simple say: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it’s a duck.” Yes, because if it barked it would not be a duck! Likewise if the last 28 terrorist acts were perpetrated by Fundamentalist Muslims, it is highly likely that the next terrorist act would be perpetrated by a Fundamentalist Muslim regardless of what CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) says!

In fact, perhaps the first Muslim group to be profiled should be CAIR. Any group whose leader said that the only law is the Koran, and who believes in Sharia Law needs to be profiled, because there can be no good in someone whose goal is to replace the U. S. Constitution. (http://www.anti-cair-net.org/)

“Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States," said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.
CAIR itself recently [2007] was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas. In the Holy Land Foundation case, federal prosecutors also listed CAIR as a member of the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that gave rise to Hamas, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The government will retry the Holy Land case, which ended in a hung jury.

"There was a lot of evidence presented at the recent Holy Land Foundation trial which exposed CAIR and others as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States," Myrick said.

Still, CAIR is lobbying House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and other sympathetic members of Congress to pressure the Justice Department to expunge its name from the case, arguing the negative publicity has hurt membership and fundraising.”

All persons and organizations who fit into a terrorist profile must be investigated, whether they are Army Majors, or young Muslims traveling from a country far away with no luggage, a one way ticket and an admitted love of Jihad. How can any sane country not do so? Why have Western nations strayed so far from sanity? How can we decide to not “insult” our Muslim brothers, yet risk the lives of our own citizens? Choosing between safety and possibly upsetting any number of Mid-East countries is a no-brainer. Given our superior computer capability, our software programs that use artificial intelligence, we can profile our way to safety far quicker that taking the time to try and convince our enemies that we are nice guys. They have a mission to destroy our way of life and to substitute their way of life for it. They believe that this is the instruction contained in the Koran. Is it? That depends upon whose reading what version of what Koran.

There are a billion or so of peace loving, moderate Muslims. These people are not the enemy, but they are complicit in that they do little to stop the Fundamentalists. Be that as it may, the enemy is the Fundamentalist Muslim. They must be profiled into obsolescence.

You stoop to their level and you are no better than they are…

2009-10-23T21:17:00.001-07:00

The line in the title of this article was used by an RNC Blog member who disagreed with my approach to recapturing control of the United States Congress. It is used often when strong actions of any kind are either taken or even suggested. Something similar, i.e. “If we do that we will be just like them …”

Why did I decided to write this piece? I logged onto the Facebook GOP/RNC site forum. That was my first mistake. I had imagined that I would find Republicans who were ready to do anything legal to win back the Congress and the Senate. I expected to see rational people questioning the RNC, and asking why their responses to ObamaCare, TARP, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, The UN “One World “ conference, Tax increases, etc have either been tepid or non-existent. I expected a fired up electorate who wanted change – not BO’s change, but real change back to small government, constitutional themes, concerns about the second amendment, the Trillions of dollars in debt that we now owe, the weakened, and soon to be even weaker dollar, The takeover of GM, Chrysler and the banks. Not a word.

I expected to see some support for the tea parties, for the millions who have lost their jobs, often through no fault of their own. I expected to see outrage over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and calls the trial and imprisonment of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. There was no mention of these criminals, or the lives that they have impacted.

I suggested that the Republican Party had forgotten how to fight, and that they needed to take a few pages from the Democrats vis-à-vis learning more street fighter tactics to counter those of the Rahm Emanuals of the world. I suggested that we needed more of a “Go for the Jugular” attitude, so that we can WIN. I suggested that we be more like THEM.

Not a person agreed. I was accused of being a Democrat, or one who should be. It was said I was one of those people who gave Republicans a bad name. Actually I am a Conservative who belongs to the Republican Party. I am also frustrated that we seem to have grown another generation of country club Republicans. Republicans who actually believe that nothing more than talk, currying favor, keeping quiet, and ignoring the real issues because they may require getting “down and dirty” is the way to get the job done.

Most of what America has suffered at the hands of the Obama Administration in the last 10 months is Obama’s fault. Much is also the fault of Republicans who are in collusion with him. Republicans like those in the RNC.

Often, exploring what person or group of persons responds to something with this comment I find that, more often than not it is a Liberal, a moderate Republican or someone who actually believes that peace can be achieved by apologizing – like President Obama.

The idea that “being just like them” or “stooping to their level”, or anything similar is necessarily bad is an assumption that may not be warranted. The “them” that is discussed is seldom identifies in detail. The things that “them” do, is also many times disregarded.

Let’s start by looking at the current baseball playoff between the LA Dodgers and the Philadelphia Phillies. The Dodgers lost. I imagine that if the Dodgers said “we must be just like them. We must execute better, we must win, and next year we must change how we play this game. We must play like them”. This is not seen as anything but good, clean competition.

What about when a pitcher on one team purposely throws a ball at an opposing pitcher’s head, and the next inning the other pitcher does the same. As a baseball player (in my youth) and a fan now, I have seen this done on a number of occasions, but never have I heard anyone say, “ Now we are just like ‘them’”. Why not? In baseball the second pitcher was sending a message, and that message was if you do this so will we, and we can do it better.

In the 1920’s, through the 70’s the underworld spent a great deal of time eluding the police and law enforcement in general. One reason is that the law enforcement then was very different than now. Police were not loath to “bust a few heads” to solve a crime. They did this for many reasons, but one was to be more like them – the criminals. Anyone who has seen photos of shootouts between police and the underworld saw that force was the rule. The police simply used the same tactics as the criminals, but did it better. They became “Just like them”. Unfortunately activists came along and said we cannot just shoot the bad guys, they need lawyers. What if one was innocent, or not as guilty? He or she needed to be protected from the police. That was necessary because some of the police, in the opinion of the ACLU types.

The police are first responders, and so are our military. They now respond not to nationally recognized force, but to insurgents, Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc. The latter in turn fight us in many ways including mass murder, de-capitation, rape, firing squads, plus the ever present IED’s. We are often at a loss as we try to figure out how to win a war without hurting anyone. We were not always like that. War was seen for what it was – War. The major objective was to kill more of the enemy than they killed of you. It was simple and effective, and usually saved lives in the long run.

The Second World War, and what the Germans did to England is a case in point. They bombed England mercilessly. We eventually bombed Germany quite thoroughly. We did what they did, but better. Anzio was similar. After taking casualties far bar beyond the norm, we simply decide that the best thing to do would be to annihilate the Germans. No quarter was asked, none was taken, Ditto for the entire campaign from Sicily to Rome. We won – they lost. We became like THEM, and we ended that part of the war, by killing more Germans than they did Allied soldiers.

But somehow that did not resonate for long. We fought to a stalemate in Korea, we actually won in Viet Nam, but let Walter Cronkite announce our loss, and Johnson believe him. The entire American government became like them – the media.

Fast Forward. So we now enter the 8th year of a war or two that could have been won in 1 to 2 years. Our forces have fought gallantly, but are hamstrung by lawyers and do-gooders who would see a rabid dog as a mistreated animal who simply need his or her ears scratched. So many atrocities have been perpetrated against our military, and yet we are told, be nice, no strong action, no shooting until you are certain the man with the AK-47 is an enemy, and for sure no torture, no matter what. We don’t want to be like them. Why not? Being like them may have shortened the war, and more importantly saved American lives.

Now all that philosophy is part and parcel of our entire political gestalt.

We will never be able to save a continent again, because we cannot save ourselves from those who have made us but a shadow of the country who set nations free.

I leave with Dante’s great line “Abandon all Hope ye who enter here…”

Tilting @ Windmills…

2009-10-23T13:53:00.000-07:00

I have puzzled over the inordinate number of mind boggling, ineffective, time wasting and naïve activities that are used by folks world wide as they deal with some of the issues facing humankind today

This article represents an exploration of the actions of people when faced with difficult, if not intractable problems. Rather than study the problem, determine its significance, and develop a plan to deal with it until solved, we submit that people do what is easiest, rather than what is best or effective. Faced with real and often horrid worldwide problems, people feel the need to do something even if that something is irrelevant. Thus, for instance, they ride bicycles not for exercise, but to do their part to save the planet. They know not how to save the planet, and feel inadequate to do so. Riding their bikes represents, in their minds, a contributed solution regardless of the fact that no planet will be saved by a cadre of well meaning bicycle riders. I submit that they know this, but do not have the ability, or courage, to participate in real solutions.

Let’s explore a number of examples: The major problems we all face include, but are not limited to, global warming, environmental protection acts, a nuclear Iran, an Arabic Israel, race relations, illegal immigration, sexual orientation, gay marriage, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, terrorism in general, racism, socialists in the White House, the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, The Constitution itself, obesity, diabetes, trans-fats, energy, energy independence, a free press, the Fairness Doctrine, a country now trillions in debt, health care services, ACORN, CAIR, and so on and so forth.

Watching many of my fellow citizen deal with any of the above is a bit puzzling. The issues are not puzzling. What is puzzling is the unwillingness to do any small amount of research into the problems prior to taking some sort of action. They ignore the effect, if any, that their actions may have on the alleged problem, to wit none.

It is important to explore why people do what they do when faced with a problem. Some people simply deny there is a problem. Others fixate on the problem and obsess on that problem, but never on a solution. Still others, and I believe these are the majority of people, choose a course of action that makes them feel good, but that does not necessarily address any part of the actual problem. What they do simply makes them feel good, and that’s enough. If they actually understood the severity of the problem, depression, angst, anxiety and a farrago of related actions would ensue. Some would suffer panic attacks.

Let’s explore one ongoing worldwide problem: Iran and the potential that Iran either has or will have a nuclear weapon capability in the near future. Most folks never think about Iran, the “bomb”, or the potential of Iran using the bomb to annihilate one or more of its neighbors. Why not? That’s simple. This group of people believes that there is nothing they can do about Iran, and if anything is to be done, the government, or some government will do it. This is a form of denial not terribly different from what the Germans, French, and Americans did when faced with the fact that the Nazis intended to kill all Jews, Gypsies, and any non-Aryan chosen to be inferior.

Recently tens of thousands, even millions of people participated in a massive Twitter “attack” on Iran. Why Twitter? It was safe, it was easy, it was quick and it allowed many to send militant messages to the Ayatollahs, the Republican Guard, and the police that said, in effect, “Take that”. Having done that, these people inflated their chests, and said “I did my part for the Iranian People. “

Did this have any impact on the government of Iran? No. Did it have any impact on the Obama Administration’s response to the terror in Iran? No. All the millions of messages - “Twitterese” – and comments were nothing more than feel-good moments.

How about an issue closer to home, i.e. environment extremism? We have been told that we are polluting the planet, that all garbage, excuse me, trash, is bad, and that all trash can or would kill something if not encapsulated. So what do we do? We sort, we use numerous different trash vessels, we never throw anything where it should not be thrown. Why not? That is easy to explain. None of us are able to actually impact our planet. The concept of planetary “trash-less-ness” is too big to get our brains around, and is untenable anyway.

Part of that problem may be that except for a few places in the USA, like Harlem in New York, parts of Los Angeles, Detroit, etc. none of us see any devastation, any rot, akin to the extreme pollution we are told exists everywhere. By the same token, few study the issue, or take the time to see if what is detailed in the news about pollution is actually true. Few question the motives of environmental extremists. It is easier to simply sort our trash, recycle, and feel that we are doing our part for the globe. We walk around and tell ourselves that if it were not for our re-cycling, the planet would be going to hell in a bucket! Actually, if none of us ever re-cycled, not a damn thing would happen to the earth.

Many studies have shown that re-cycling actually uses more energy than simply tossing the articles in a land fill. So while John and Mary Recycle throw fewer plastic things in the trash, they increase global warming related to energy consumption. Of course that assumes that we humans actually have any impact on global warming. We do not. (See scientific literature on this subject.)

Regardless of our inaction, of our willingness to accept nonsense from all the prophets of doom, gloom, planetary disaster, human responsibility for everything, we are not doing anything that affects anything. By never questioning authority and never saying the equal of “The emperor has no cloths” we are not different than the person who is an enabler of an alcoholic or a drug abuser. We silently watch and take the easy way out. We recycle, rather than address the issue; we buy silly cars like the Prius rather than question the real issues behind energy, and energy independence. We never wonder why every President since Jimmy Carter has proclaimed energy independence a goal, but none have moved even an inch toward that goal. If we do wonder we never demand an answer. To hedge our bets some still buy a Prius just in case…

We never attack a problem directly because Americans more often than not take the easy way out – there’s that concept again! Rather than ask tough questions, we became politically correct. Rather than challenge activists groups who believe the constitution is an arcane piece of patter that need not be heeded, we gave in, and in the process give up.

When a gay person first said I have the same rights as a heterosexual person relative to marriage, we never said “No you do not.” When the Black Panthers intimidated voters, in Pennsylvania, we never said, “Stop or you will be arrested and thrown in jail.” When Environmentalists in California said the nonexistent Kit Fox is more important than building homes and businesses for citizens, we did not say “No it is not”. When Code Pink said, the Iraq war is illegal; we never said “No it is not.” We never had the courage to tell them that their peace activisms, and the peace activism of others before them, have killed more people than would have been killed in any war. We never told them that in the history of the world, there has never been a lasting peace without a war. We never told them: Deal with it!

When the Obama administration said we must apologize to the world, we never said “No we do not’. In fact, the world should be apologizing to us. When we see Socialism as a Presidential agenda, we never say “Mr. President, this is America. We are a Representative Republic, and prefer to stay that way.” Ditto to all of our representatives who close their eyes to the shenanigans of the Socialist-Communist-Liberal cabal now in power.

Americans do the things they do because they are powerless, or at least feel powerless to do anything meaningful. So they sort trash, add bumper stickers to their cars, never read the news because it is upsetting, and never complain publically because we do not want to be seen as troublemakers.

Sadly, we need millions of troublemakers to save the United States of America, and even more sadly, it may be too late to find them. They have all been labeled Domestic Terrorists, and are in hiding.

ObamaCare - Response to a Liberal

2009-10-11T09:13:00.000-07:00

This article represents the response of Stan C., our guest author, to a Liberal acquaintance – The latter a man who has turned so many corners that he has ended up where he began – confused.

Nick, how could you possibly not agree that the process is awful? For openers, the democrats in both the House and the Senate have voted NOT to produce the final legislation on the internet 72 hours before hearing it. What are they afraid of? I hope you remember that Obama categorically stated that he would do this in the name of transparency, and Nancy Pelosi agreed. They have not followed through on this promise on any of the bills they have passed. Max Baucus stated that it would take him 2 weeks to get the bill on line, therefore he voted against doing so. Let him give me the bill and I will have it on line within 24 hours. What a bunch of bullshit! Do you want people who are either lying or have no ability whatsoever to be creating legislation that affects your health?

Have you forgotten how the stimulus package was approved without the legislators having read it? Can you name a major bill passed this year that was published on the web and that citizens as well as members of the House and Senate had an opportunity to read?

Of course just about everyone agrees that some type of reform is needed, but we don't need a government takeover of health insurance. Do you think the government run post office is more efficient than UPS or FEDEX? How long do you think it would take the federal government to bankrupt the 1/6 of our economy represented by health care? Are you not aware of the looming bankruptcy of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? Can you name a single government owned industry that runs efficiently and in the black? I can't! Why in the world would you want to turn any industry over to the government?

Do you really believe that Obama can cut $500 billion out of Medicare? If so, what is he waiting for? A legislative bill is not required to correct the fraud to which he refers. Why should those of us on Medicare be penalized and have $500 billion in cuts affect our quality of medical insurance? Are you foolish enough to believe that one-half a trillion dollars can be cut from Medicare, and that somewhere between 30,000,000 and 50,000,000 people are added to the health care rolls without any reduction in medical benefits? If so, perhaps you and I should talk about your buying Hubbard Park ( A park in Nick & Stan’s home town) from me for an agreed upon price!

Do you not think the already projected debt of $ 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years isn't enough? How many more bonds are you willing to sell to China? How much more devalued are you willing to allow the dollar to become, before you say enough?

Thanks to those who voted for Obama and democrats in the House and Senate, the federal government now controls the banking industry, most of the insurance industry, and most of the automobile industry. They are now telling companies how much money their employees can earn? Do you wish to do the same for the health industry?

Do you think the present administration understands economics? Has it passed, or even recommended any legislation that would help the economy? I haven't seen any such legislation! What happened to "You must immediately approve the stimulus package in order to avoid Armageddon, and if you do we promise unemployment will not rise beyond 8%." Have you checked the unemployment numbers lately? And of course, Cap & Trade is a great example of legislation that has the potential to wreck havoc with our economy and cause a significant increase in energy costs? Do you think the energy providers are going to eat the additional costs? You know that they are going to pass them on to the consumers. As of this date it is estimated that at the least, Cap and Trade will add a dollar to each gallon of gasoline purchased by the American consumer. Am I to assume that is just fine with you and your Liberal friends?

Let me get back to health care legislation. Do you think it is fair for that those who have worked hard and have high incomes should be required to pay for others? Is there no limit to how much the government should be allowed to tax?

Obama's statement that the existing legislation does not represent a takeover of health care by the government is a flat out lie. I haven't read the most recent legislation because those that have created it refuse to make it available; but I have read previous versions. Please trust me when I say -- IT IS A TOTAL TAKEOVER OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY -- private companies will not be allowed to make a move without government approval. The government will determine what kind of procedures is appropriate and how much doctors and hospitals can charge for them.

Speaking of lies, have you noticed how the number of uninsured miraculously dropped from 50,000,000 to 30,000,000 during Obama's prime time speech. Can you explain that? I can! Even the 30,000,000 is inflated. It includes at least 6,000,000 immigrants (mostly illegal). It also includes about 10,000,000 people (mostly young and feeling immortal--Do you remember those days?) who are uninsured by choice. There are millions more who qualify for already existing programs. The real number of uninsured is probably 15,000,000 or less when one considers that many of these are eligible to be treated by existing Medicare and Medicaid programs.. Do we need to destroy the best system in the world to cover them? NO! NO! NO! Just about everyone agrees, so let's simply provide government subsidies for these people to purchase private insurance plans. We don't need a government run plan.

Congress should pass legislation that allows insurance companies to cross state lines. That would create competition. Companies should be required to offer a variety of plans. Insurers are allowed to sell automobile insurance across state lines, why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same with health insurance. With automobile policies one can purchase $500 deductible, $1,000 deductible, etc. One can choose the limits for liability and for collision. Why shouldn't an individual be given the choice of a policy only for catastrophic health problems? Must every health insurance policy cover every doctor's visit? Let the individual choose what is best for that person or family. Requiring health insurance policies to cover doctor's visits and all medications is comparable to having automobile insurance cover oil changes, and battery replacements.

Insurance companies should be required to create a pool for those with pre-existing conditions. Let all companies share the costs of such patients.

Individual citizens should be allowed to purchase insurance plans at the same cost as large corporations. Congress should do what it can to make individuals responsible for their own health care plans. Too many don't care about the costs because they never see them. The return to non-taxable medical accounts would help to stimulate this.

Portability should be required in all plans. Someone who is released from a job should be able to stay with the same plan while searching for a new job. Perhaps the company should be required to provide the same coverage for the released worker that is provided for other employees. This is a point where the government could reimburse the company for added expenses.

Nick, as you can see, I could go on for quite some time, but suffice repeat the some reform is needed, but we don't need to destroy the best medical system in the world, and we certainly don't need to add one more component to "government run."

One point I have not mentioned is the issue of including illegal immigrants in the health care plan. This is really a moot point. There is no doubt in my mind that the administration supported by the House and the Senate will pass an Immigration "Reform" Bill this year or next, and that it will provide a wide open door for moving illegal immigrants to citizenship, and do so in a very expedited way. Therefore more than 12,000,000 additional people will be added to the coverage. What will this do to an already overburdened, government run, inefficient system? The first thought that comes to mind, and it should come to yours also, is that it will make matters worse, and ultimately deny care to millions of people, especially those who are actually citizens.

Finally, if the proposed plan is so good, why has the president required that it not go into effect until 2013—a year AFTER his re-election bid? And if it is so good why have both the House and the Senate chosen to exempt themselves from the requirements of the bill?

I must say that although I appreciate your wanting to view all sides of an issue, I am quite surprised and disappointed that you would take any issue whatsoever with my statement that the present administration is following an awful process and that this is terrible legislation.

The Americas Jounal...

2009-04-25T19:12:00.000-07:00

Date line…April 25, 3009…The Americas Journal

Filed from: Washonstan – Capital of the Americas

The Council on Human Elations (CHE) met today in Washonstan to discuss a recent development in the under developed parts of The Americas. The Director of the Council, Ibn Raan E-Manuelle, requested that the council meet in special session when he was informed that the middle countries of The Americas, formerly known as the Mid-West in the now largely uninhabited central part of the former United States, were demanding to be heard.

Council members were at first unwilling to meet given the relative unimportance of this part of The Americas. One member, Lesbie Frank, could see no reason to discuss anything even remotely related to the middle of this now desolate, minimally populated area of a financially and morally bankrupt country. Even more importantly she questioned why the Council should take the time to hear any request from the last area in the world that was home to those who still practiced what is generally alluded to as conservative values. Ms. Frank is the adopted, wonderfully Lesbian, great, great, great granddaughter of the now deceased Congressman, Mr. Barney Frank, and the leader of the “Gays in Banking Movement” during the 21^st century. Mr. Frank is also remembered as the fellow who started the “Who Need Morals?” movement. Lesbie Frank is proud to continue the “family” tradition of putting the Gay & Lesbian community’s needs before the countries needs, and if necessary placing Gay issues before any need, including the economy or safety of The Americas. [Note: The American Journal is planning an in-depth, detailed analysis of the role of the Frank family in the politics of the Western world. This will soon be available at http://www.theamericas-journal.com.]

Mr. E-Manuelle briefed the Council on the request sent to him in the form of a petition from the people populating the mid-western part of the former United States. Said petition demands that marriage between heterosexuals be recognized by The Americas. This group, Adults for Heterosexual Marriage (AHM), admits that men and women have been clandestinely marrying for centuries, in spite of the fact that heterosexual marriage was banned since 2059 in both the former United States, and The Americas.

This reporter has been told that some mid-westerners have chosen to marry both a member of the same, as well as a member of the opposite sex in order to pass the occasional inspections carried out by the Homosexual Marriage Protection Force (HMPF). Making matters worse for this group was the difficulty of hiding the occasional child born to the heterosexual couples. Prior to 3001, when asexual birth became possible, no one was to have a child without permission from CHE. This hardship, coupled to the fact that this group has somehow decided that heterosexual relations, especially sexual relations, were far more interesting when engaged in by couples owning different anatomies, has finally become too much to bear. Thus, the petition.

Mr. E-Manuelle will suggest to the Council that a Commission (some things never change) be formed to investigate this matter. His major concern is that this small group will act up to such an extent that they will perhaps galvanize any other radical pro-heterosexual marriage groups. Should this happen, The Americas could be facing a challenge to the status quo, and that could mean a decrease in the harmony and world view that has pervaded for some time now. Once the Commission’s findings are finalized they will be submitted to the New World Order Action Group. What action would, or could, be taken against these radical heterosexual conservatives is yet to be determined.

It is our understanding that findings will be presented to the Ruler of the Americas, King Barack Hussein Obama III.

Filed April 25th, 3009
The America's Journal

The ACLU/Communist Manifesto Meets its Match…

2009-03-27T20:52:00.000-07:00

“In 1963 the Congressional Report below detailed how The Communist Party and Moscow planned to undermine the economy, security, business and freedom in the United States of America.” Thus began an email I received that detailed the congressional investigation of the Communist Party in America. Reading the original statements is not only instructive in a historical sense, but puzzling. Why puzzling? To me it is why our government did and those who watch over our republic, see these Communist statements, subsequently assigned to the ACLU, for what they are – a declaration of war against Capitalism, the United States and freedom.

In 1954 Congress passed the Communist Control Act. The Congressional investigation into the Communist Party manifesto below took place in 1963. It would seem to anyone who can count that the 1963 investigation was unnecessary, and that all that needed to be done was to reiterate the fact that the United States of America was not going to allow subversion, nor anything that was subversive to be promulgated. Yet what did Congress do? They investigated and reported. Subsequently Roger Baldwin started the ACLU.

Again citing the person (Maryanne) who was kind enough to send me Communist/ACLU manifesto stated: “Look up what the self-professed Communist founder of the ACLU, Roger Nash Baldwin, stated… It will shock you. He defines socialism as the MEANS, and Communism as the GOAL…. the ACLU was founded by Communists for the express purpose of undoing America from the inside out. It seems that Baldwin and his successors have has been pretty successful given the ACLU of today, and their constant interference with the legitimate goals and objectives defined by our Founding Fathers and memorialized in the constitution.

Why they were not stopped as soon as they were organized? I imagine that the beginning of Political Correctness occurred when we “looked the other” way when groups like the nascent ACLU began their attack on our society. We probably said, “What harm can they do? Oh, certainly we believe in civil liberties.”

I doubt that we would ask those same questions today. The harm is all around us. The ACLU along with its support groups, the Main Stream Media, and The Democratic controlled Congress and Senate, are systematically dismantling the constitution al basis of our country, and substituting government tyranny in place of liberty and justice.

We can fight this. It takes a simple notion to start that process. Take a look below and the differences, however slight in what the ACLU wants to do, and what Speriamo proposes. Let’s start now to take control.

Original Communist/ACLU Statements Speriamo’ s Alternative Manifesto

[Note that the original ACLU points are in RED and our alternative statements in BLACK.]

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
1. U.S. stipulates that coexistence is not an alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
2. U.S. will never capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
3. Develop the position that total disarmament (by) the U.S. would be a demonstration of moral weakness.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
4. Permit free trade between all nations. Trade with nations affiliating with Communists and Communism is banned if items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
5. Ban long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites, unless loan terms benefit the USA.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
6. Provide American aid to all nations. Communist dominated nations excepted.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
7. Grant recognition to China and admit of Red China to the U.N., but grant it no more authority than that given to the United States.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
8. Dissolve East and West Germany as separate states. Promote a unified Germany.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
9. Limit conferences to ban atomic tests. The U.S. rescinds its promise to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
10. Allow no Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
11. Expose the U.N. as a fraud, and not the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it exclude language for a one-world government with its own independent armed forces

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
12. Outlaw the Communist Party, or limit its existence severely.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
13. Demand loyalty oaths from every citizen.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
14. Immediately stop giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
15. Establish United States laws which will never allow capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
16. Eliminate technical decisions of the courts that are targeted at weakening basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
17. Keep control of the schools. Use them to educate children about the dangers of Socialism and Communist propaganda. Protect teachers’ associations from infiltration by Socialist and Communist Labor Unions and groups. Put the U.S Constitution in textbooks, and demand that it be taught.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
18. Maintain control of all student newspapers, and protect them from Socialist and Communist infiltration.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
19. Use student assemblies to foment public protests against programs, or
organizations which are promoted by Socialists or Communists.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy making positions.
20. Expose the press. Suggest book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions that maintain the Constitution and do this to promote American Capitalism.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. Do this to tell the American people the truth about the Left, Socialism and Communism.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
22. Promote American culture by lauding all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms." Stop this from happening at every turn.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote beauty, artistic wonder and, meaningful art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
24. Promote new laws governing obscenity by calling them "values". Promote free speech and free press, but never let them change the American value system.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
25. Maintain cultural standards of morality by eliminating pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as sometimes basic human behavior, but do not call them "normal, natural, or healthy".

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
27. Support places of religious worship, and promote revealed religions. Compare them with “social" religion, and discredit the latter. Promote the Bible, the Torah and the Koran, and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity in all of these.

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
28. Support prayer and religious expression in the schools on the ground that it does not violate the principle of "separation of church and state".

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
29. Memorize the American Constitution. It is an amazing document that has built the most fair, most equal and most free society on earth.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
30. Revere the American Founding Fathers. Present them as citizens who had every concern for the "common man", and acted upon them.

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
31. Promote American culture and encourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was a major part of the "big picture".

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
32. Defeat any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which promote the operation of the Socialist or Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
34. Re-Institute the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
35. Enhance and enlarge the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
36. Infiltrate more unions in order to see how they consistently violate election and fund raising laws. Also explore how they violate their own charters.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
37. Do everything possible to promote the engine of wealth in America - big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
38. Maintain the powers of arrest with the police. Do not allow social
agencies to attain these powers. Treat all behavioral problems as social, psychiatric or family disorders, which can be understood and treated by a wide variety of helping professionals.

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
39. Assist the psychiatric profession and mental health laws to ferret out those Socialists and Communists who would like to gain coercive control over the United States.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
40. Promote and support the family the most basic and most necessary institution. Encourage faithfulness; oppose promiscuity, support abstinence and all marriages between a man and a woman.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children under the influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of non-parent groups, and a poor education system.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["united force"] to solve economic, political or social problems.
42. Destroy the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition. Demonstrate that student and special-interest groups can help solve economic, political or social problems if they study them and act in good faith.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
43. Support all colonial governments while also promoting native populations to be ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
44. Protect and defend the Panama Canal from being taken over by any one country (other than the United States.)

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

45. Support the Connelly reservation so the U.S. can prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction (over domestic problems). Never give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

Given that the Communists, and the ACLU - one and the same - have managed to accomplish some of their ends, it seems to me that another group, Conservatives and loyal Americans who are opposed to this type of governance can do the same. We can refute these tenants. In doing so, we can undo much of what has been destroyed by the enemies of our Constitution, and the Capitalist nation we are, always have been and always want to be.

April 10, 2009

The Accidental Mulatto...?

2009-02-06T20:54:00.000-08:00

For some time now the word “mulatto’ has been deemed politically incorrect. It is a mystery to me why this is so. In both the Webster dictionary and Wikipedia, a mulatto is defined as:

“Person who has one Black parent and one White parent... Popularly, any person with mixed Black and Caucasoid ancestry.”

Given this, why all the fuss over a Mulatto President, i.e. Barak Obama (BO)? Mr. Obama fits the criteria in the definition. As far as we know one of his parents is Black and one is White. Thus he is of mixed race, unless we have all been duped, and he is either 100% White or 100% Black. That seems not to be the case, notwithstanding his questionable citizenry, i.e. is he a natural born United States citizen, or is he a foreign exchange student? This latter question is not the subject here.

What is the question is whether the Liberal Socialist agenda he is pursuing results from his mother’s (white) influence or his father’s (black) background, or both? Let me stress we are not looking at this from a racial perspective but from a sociological one. The question before us is: Given the 50/50 mixture of Black and White blood in BO, is it not just as likely, from a purely statistical point of view, that he is the 44 president and he of white parentage, as it is that he is the 44^th President, and the first Black one at that? After all if he can be called the first Black president because of his ancestry, why not call him a White president based on the same spurious logic?

He is always, and let me repeat that, always, referred to as the 1^st African American or Black person to be elected president of the good old USA. Never is it mentioned - except in hateful Conservative blogs, or talk shows that he is actually the first Mulatto president of the good old USA. Why not? Being of mixed parentage would seem to have its advantages, as well as disadvantages. In the present case however, since BO is now president I am hard pressed to come up with too many disadvantages.

Politically Obama is a Liberal/Socialist who believes in big government, and in government’s ability to solve problems. He also believes in absolute power and in calling all the shots. Is any of this a result of his repudiation of his White ancestry, in favor of his Black ancestry? Has he developed his approach to life, and to politics, as a result of his Father’s Socialistic, attitudes, or his mother’s more Bohemian ones? Perhaps it is as simple as deciding that the advantages of declaring his “Blackness” would accrue to a political career - where he would have more opportunity to stand out in a crowd – a crowd of white politicians all doing pretty much the same thing? In other words was being an opportunist in this case the major reason why he chose to be Black, rather than “just another White?

Did he correctly surmise that the main stream media would rise up and become major supporters because they needed to have a new hero, and it would be much better if that hero were Black? Did George Soros, realize that the level of guilt in White America was such that here was a man who, if elected, would expunge that guilt? Did the DNC realize that they could not win on ideas, but they could win on nominating a minority, and on brainwashing those youth sober enough to vote? Did all these people choose BO, or did BO choose them along with his Blackness, as a colorful path to the presidency?

Is BO a true Black American or is he a Mulatto who is an Accidental Black rather than an Accidental Mulatto?

If he destroys our traditions, our constitution, and our beliefs in ourselves, will he be doing it as a Black man, a half White-half Black man or will it be that White man inside of him who put him up to this mischief?

God! I wish Huck were here to set us straight…

People are Humans too!

2009-01-18T18:46:00.000-08:00

People are Humans Too!

(A constitutional Dilemma)

Lately I have come to believe that people are humans. Due to that revelation, I have decided that we should be given as much, or frankly more consideration, than species other than Homo sapiens. To be really candid about it, humans deserve much, much more consideration, than that given to various animals, including chickens, geese, cows, fish, toads, lizards, snakes, and now trees and grass. If not our unabridged right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” will indeed become abridged.

Animal rights group demands are diminishing us, and in fact, if things keep going in the direction they are, it is my contention that eventually humans will become an endangered species. Now, some may consider this hyperbole. Let me tell you why that is not so.

Animal Constitutional Rights

Ecuador has proposed, and now passed, a constitutional amendment that basically gives the earth the same rights as humans. Here is a quote that offers some insight.

“Ecuador's proposed constitution includes an article that grants nature the right to ‘exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution’ and will grant legal standing to any person to defend those rights in court….

…The concept that nature itself can possess rights runs counter to the classical liberal theories of government that hold sway throughout much of the West, which view rights as possessed only by individual human beings. But Ecuador is not the first country to propose granting rights to nonhuman entities: Many countries, including the United States, have long held that corporations possess many of the same rights - such as the rights to free expression and to due process - that human beings have. And in June, Spain's parliament approved a measure to extend some human rights to nonhuman apes…” (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/04-7).

From another source:

“The voters of Ecuador overwhelmingly approved a new Constitution that grants more power to its leftist president, Rafael Correa... one of the most notable clauses affirms the inalienable rights of nature, explicitly stating that nature “has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.” (http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/index.php?p=1717)

Now it seems that other countries are considering adding this concept to their constitutions! What next? Citizenship to roads? Human rights to cars, buses and trucks? After all, the latter may have feelings too, and since they are often abused by humans, need to be taken care of by those of us who do may not qualify for such exceptional treatment ourselves. Our feelings and needs are irrelevant .

What more could happen that makes us a lesser species? Let’s explore some of the things that have already happened, and which are only the beginning of a process that will place us at the proverbial end of the pecking order.

California Chickens & Geese

If chickens cannot flap their wings, they are in peril. That is the position of the animal rights group that has convinced the California (Where else?) legislation that egg producers are the Heinrich Himmler of farming. How could egg producers raise chickens in a ghetto too small to allow these poor – dumb - chickens to flap away? Have they no understanding of how much a chicken suffers if it cannot flap? No, apparently not. Thus an intervention by the state – just like those good national socialists of old – was necessary. By decree each chicken must have space to flap, and even though that will cost billions to build larger coops, and drive the egg producers from California eventually that does not matter. Only the chickens matter. The consumer who now can buy a dozen eggs for less than $2.00 does not matter. So what if eggs cost $5.00/dozen? The chickens are flapping, happy and hopefully still laying eggs. (I guess that makes them flap happy.)

Actually what will happen is that egg producers will move to other states, thereby enriching the states, and making California even less productive than usual. This is a state of affairs difficult to comprehend, at best.

There was a simple solution to this. It was to “Just say no” to the morons who believe that egg laying chickens are more important that the consumer who purchases these eggs or the farmer who raises the chickens. Even more important than that is to suggest to these folks that unless and until a chicken can talk, and describe the physical and psychic pain caused by the space available in their coops, don’t bother us. When a chickens talks, we will listen.

Another thing to remind the animal rights person, is that we kill these chickens sooner or later, so allowing them to live at all, and to lay eggs is just about as good as it going to get. So in a word: No, we will not listen to your pleas, and we strongly suggest that you get lost. Sue us. We have more resources than you do, so this should be fun.”

If I were on a committee addressing these people I would also ask who supported abortion. If there were some who did, and I cannot conceive that this entire bunch is pro-life, I would ask them to explain how it is fine to kill a baby, but not so fine to raise chickens is a coop that does not allow the birds to flap. Perhaps I might find it in me to also suggest that they examine their priorities.

We, the ever trod upon humans, often forget the concept of limits and boundaries. Children and many adults need boundaries and limits in order to feel safe. When we do not supply them, children “up the ante”. Anyone who has ever had children, or watched children grow, knows how this works. First it is an annoying tug at your pant leg, then it is a kick in the leg, then it is a kick or pulls on the arm, then it is a temper tantrum, then it is a sulking, than it is…you know the rest. However those who establish boundaries and limits for a child, and by doing so help a child to feel safe, understand this. Good parents do it, fine teachers do it, and probation officers do it, as do wardens in state penitentiaries. The latter are those who deal with limitless children after they have finally upped the ante one or two times too many. (How do I know this? I treated abused, neglected, mentally ill, juveniles, for 28 years)

When we fail to set limits on groups, like animal rights activists, we fail ourselves, we fail our progeny, and we lose ground in the battle to insure human rights as they were envisioned by our Founding Fathers. If we continue on this path, we will join Ecuador.

Now For the Geese….to be continued

Conservative Nation - A Concept ©

2008-12-11T09:19:00.001-08:00

Introduction

What follows is an outline of a plan, which if implemented, may help us to return to the principles our Founding Fathers fought for, and at times, suffered and died for, as they forged a Constitution and built as nation. In the recent past, efforts by politicians and liberal judges have modified our Constitution, not necessarily for the better. This is not acceptable, and steps need to be taken to return to the beliefs embodied in that document.

The goal of the Conservative Nation (CN) movement is to take the first sentence in the Constitution that begins with “We the people…”, and broaden it. Broaden it not to make changes in the Constitution, but to organize conservative Americans in a manner that makes the people responsible for the changes that need to be made. Our purpose is to return to the principles of Conservatism that made, and will continue to make, this country the greatest country in the world.

The notion of Conservative Nation is a simple one. It takes as a given that politicians who we the people have elected have not done a good job in protecting us from not only other people who dislike us, but also from those within our government who would perpetrate harm to the United States of America. It matters little if that harm was, or is, done as an objective of a specific group of politicians, or whether it was done from greed or stupidity. If it was done at all at the hands of our politicians, from any party, it must be countered, and those people who perpetrated that harm removed from office through the electoral process.

The rest of this outline will address ideas and methods of accomplishing the above. Obviously, far, far more detail is needed than is provided here. That will come.

Goals:

One goal of CN will be to organize at least millions of American conservatives into a force that will address issues antithetical to Conservatism. Another is to organize, or network as the case may be, Internet and communications resources into a phalanx of interactive information services that will monitor and expose any political action or politician in the Congress that proposes any program which weakens the United States’ economic, military, energy, social, anti-terrorism and medical positions.

Objectives:

There are many issues in the United States at this time. CN cannot address all of them and be successful. We can however delineate Objectives that comport with the general goals of true conservatives. These are briefly outlined below.

Attracting members to CN is one of the foremost objectives. Without thousand, and hopefully millions of members CN cannot achieve a critical mass of citizens determined to return to conservative values. Membership fees will be very modest ($10.00/person/year) and will be used to address issues in print media, television, the Internet, and special communications. Concomitant objectives include building a unique and easy to access and use web site. The sites will be interactive, and serve as a basis for airing concerns and ideas on how to address those concerns.

The need for a huge membership will be addressed by development of a Recruitment Department tasked with presenting the CN concept to all ages, ethnic and religious groups. Additional members shall come from college campuses, and from retirees. As membership grows, members will be tasked with specific activities that promote Conservative Nation. Retired military as well as active military, in as much as they can participate without jeopardizing their status will also be a priority objective.

We imagine that if CN is well received, another objective will be to form statewide representative groups. To do this will require recruiting statewide representatives who will then promote county and city chapters of CN. A major objective of this effort is to schedule meetings and statewide congresses of CN members to promote all the goals and objectives of the movement. Each state representative will have a budget for all activities that are scheduled.

Nothing done at CN will be secretive. All will be presented to the public via a Public Information department. The information to be disseminated will include exposes’ of governmental malfeasance at all levels. This objective is extremely important as it will be through public information dissemination that CN will impact upon the Federal and Statewide politicians who are determined to convert the United States into a more Socialistic place.

Another objective will be to develop a Legal Department that will promote and defend all of CN’s causes including diminishing the impact of the ACLU.

Finally, launching CN by January of 2010 is a major and realistic objective.

Once the goals and objectives are clearly delineated, the next task is to define why this effort is necessary, and to develop a methodology dedicated to accomplishing the goals and objectives. Simultaneously a budget needs to be developed. Finally an evaluation instrument needs to be developed to ascertain whether or not we are on target.

Please do not assume that the order of these objectives is currently relevant. As we develop this concept, each objective will be placed where it needs to be placed in an action item schedule. For instance, legal advice, and incorporating will be a first order priority. Obviously, if this idea takes hold we need legal advice vis-à-vis how to structure it, and we need it prior to doing anything as an organization..

Why a New Movement?

Simply put, the old movement has failed, and failed miserably. Many of our representatives have lost their way regarding Conservative principles. Members of Congress have forgotten that, at a glance, the United States is a conservative, capitalistic, representative republic. During the last 8 years, we have seen Republicans, who identify themselves as conservatives, either vote with liberal Democrats, or refuse to stand up and fight against the hegemony of the Left. They decided that moderation is the way to go, or that it is politically incorrect to disagree strenuously with other members. They have placed their proverbial fingers in the wind, and decided that the wind was at the back of the Democrats. They, having little courage, decided that since the selling out of America seemed to be winning the hearts and minds of voters, and that more than principle is important.

It is obvious from this last election, and from the last few years that Conservatism is in decline. Not in decline among those of us who believe in it – but in decline among the politicians who “feel “ that they must pander to the interest groups with the hot topic, the most money, and the best propaganda programs. Some of the issues that they have given away to the Democrats, or have taken as their own are: Global Warming, Alternative Energy only, Prescription Drugs, Educational, the War on Terror, etc. It a poll says some Americans are against, or for whatever is being polled, these erstwhile politicians are against, or for it too. Few have taken a stand; For example few have said we need to stop Iran, now, but any conservative citizen can provide cogent reasons why we must. We need to look at the never ending War on Poverty, and stand up to the fact that that war is lost, has been lost, and will always be lost. Our pandering politicians would never suggest that one can help the poor by helping them get a job, an education, and a goal in life.

CN shall be a movement that does what the ACLU does, but does it to support America rather than destroy it. We will identify something we don’t like, or don’t agree with, and we will expose it for what is – a fraud perpetrated on the people. This fraud has been given legitimacy by elected officials looking out for their own self interests, while professing to be looking out after ours. Once we identify politicians who are not truly conservative, we will help elect politicians that do not start every sentence with “My friend across the aisle…” They will start each rebuttal with something like “Now that is simply untrue, and in fact my colleague is lying about…” Our efforts must include direct rebuttals to issues, or events that are outside of our paradigms, as those paradigms relate to conservatism. For example, during this last never ending election cycle neither the Republican Party nor the candidate directly addressed the issue of the president elect's birth, his past, his unwillingness to release his records, or his relationships with unsavory characters. That was a case of too little too late. For Example, the president elect's comments about bankrupting the coal industry, his enormous fund raising, and the suspicion that some of it was from illegal sources, and his failure as a community organizer were addressed, but tepidly.

Even if the above were addressed openly and candidly, they would have done little good since the main stream media was unwilling to carry these stories. CN needs to develop a strategy where the media is exposed as unfair, predisposed to Democratic candidates, biased in their views, and willing to spike stories that place “their” candidate in an unfavorable light. Americans are being lied to by omission as well as by direct distortions of the truth. This must stop.

Last but by no means least, a redefinition of Conservative strategy and tactics must be developed. These strategies and tactics need to address the power of modern technology to tap into the social mores of young male and female voters, of women, and of minority groups. We must understand that the victor in the 2008 election was the closest thing to an MTV candidate that we have seen to date. He was buffed, polished, programmed, and presented as a feature film. That worked especially well when linked to his “Change” and “Hope” messages. What are our messages to be, and how will we make use of modern technology to reach all peoples?

The title of this part is “Why a New Movement?”. Why indeed? That question is fairly easy to answer: Because few in Washington during the last years have had the collective will, courage or resources to do this on the Conservative side. CN will expose elected officials who ran on a given ticket and then spend all their time in Washington pandering to interest groups, or making pacts with fund raisers to support them.

The Liberal side bought the 2008 election. They bought it with better fundraising, better advertisements, better strategies, better tactics, and more ruthlessness than the Republican Party, or the Republican Candidate. Furthermore the Republican candidates were not ready for a street fight, but that was what they got. CN will be a nation of street fighters, a peaceful, civilian political militia that will not allow the probable excesses of the left to go unchallenged. The Democratic majority in the Congress, coupled to a Democratic President of questionable talent, Socialistic views, and a seeming soft spot for our enemies, provides a perfect opportunity. We must face the fact that we lost. We must examine why we lost. We must study the Democratic playbook, and devise means to defeat them, and do so soundly. We can be gentlemen, but not while they kick us around. We cannot refuse a street fight. We must become better at it than they are. If this were a sporting event, we would not stop scoring when we were sure to win. We would never stop scoring! The goal shall be not to simply win, but to destroy the Democratic Party as a political force in the United States. That’s why we need Conservative Nation.

Methodology

How can this be done? What resources can be used to morph the Republican Party into a lean, hungry, focused group that will not stop until it controls the Congress and the Presidency again? How can this new focus be developed, and what programs will it support. How broad will a platform be, and how will it be developed?

Funding

The CN movement needs to be conceived, and then developed into an entity that not only can accomplish its goals, but will not stop until it accomplishes the Goals and Objectives set out above. Before any of the Goals and Objectives outlined above can be actualized, the need for support must be addressed.

The first three Objectives deal with the need for funding. The next three deal with information retrieval, analysis and dissemination. Without money there can be no national effort to build a new and effective movement. Without money, no internet, telephonic or other informational efforts can be realized. Without money or information, there is not intelligence gathering, and no rebuttal to dis-information spread by those we wish to correct. A small cadre of primary members and supporters needs to be identified and courted to the effect that they will provide the seed monies necessary to launch the main Internet fund raising activities. These people do not necessarily have to donate money. They can donate in kind services that allow CN to announce itself. They can provide a portal or portals whereby the initial funds necessary to incorporate, develop a web site, and a database might be obtained. Alternatively, 250 charter members, 5 in each state, donating $1000 each can be attracted from the multitude of Conservative Blogs, and sites already in existence, as well as from small businesses concerned about that a Democratic and liberal regime will do to their businesses.

Communications & The Internet

No major effort to organize people can be accomplished without the Internet. This medium is no longer new, nor is it something that only a few can understand and use. The successful Democratic candidate, as well as numerous Liberal Blogs have shown us the effectiveness of the internet in both fund raising and information dissemination. Within months of becoming a legal entity CN shall develop a web portal dedicated to recruitment, fund raising, information dissemination, and membership discussion and feedback. The internet shall be our major recruitment tool (see below). Additionally, CN must join with other conservative efforts. Combining the objectives of our new effort with other established ones will weave a national presence that is larger and more comprehensive than any one group can be individually. If we can accomplish the goal of synergistically getting our messages to the American public millions of Americans can be reached each day. We envision a Political Portal.

To do this we must make organizations like Grassfire, American Solutions, Hillsdale College, NewsMax etc, colleagues. If we band, or bundle, our efforts with other popular Internet Conservative efforts, we will have larger numbers, and a greater impact than the main stream media. We must approach all parties and suggest a means of growing stronger through coordinated efforts. In many ways, this is a play on the concept of a united states – separate but equal. Each thread in the national effort will maintain their unique identity, but when it comes to items that threaten the American way of life, all will band together to disseminate the same message, and the same strategies and the same tactics. At the outset it is important to admit, this uniting of efforts will be very difficult to accomplish, but it is certainly worth trying.

Recruiting

A Recruiting Department shall be established. It will be charged with creating, developing and implementing a painless, brief application to join CN. Additionally said plan shall address each state’s needs, each state’s population base, including parameters of age, race, sex, political affiliation, etc. In brief, our database must be extensive enough to allow a professional market research effort to be mounted. The Recruiting Department shall work hand in hand with an Internet Development Department in order to obviate redundancy, develop a user friendly web site interface that can morph into a FaceBook or MySpace type MyPoliticalSpace environment. Their most important responsibility will be to attract the millions of members, each donating $10.00/annum to membership.

Identifying College Campuses that might show an interest in this effort will be difficult in some regards. Colleges like Hillsdale (a very conservative college) can be approached to lead such an effort. Students there can be tapped for input and insights into what do young voters and potential voters need to see, hear an dread in order to seriously consider their political choices. These and other young people can also provide guidance vis-à-vis all ways to communicate our message. In many ways, the young are often ahead of the older generation when it comes to communications technology. We need not be afraid to admit that, but use it to our advantage.

Member Responsibilities

Members shall be tasked with specific responsibilities. Most important is contacting local, State, and Federal representative on issues that CN members see as important to all. Given the time constraints of many, draft letter, email and Fax messages will be provided for the convenience of all members who do not have the time to develop their own note. Each time thousands of letters, emails and Fax messages arrive at the offices of the politicians who feel that they are immune from criticism; the people will be speaking in a loud voice.

Forums, Meetings and Support

Members of any large group want and need to know that there are others who feel as they feel, believe what they believe, and want what they want. One way to assist in that process is to develop statewide forums, attended by those who may have developed a county or regional forum on issues and strategy and tactics. Whenever possible these will held in convenient places, and enjoy a design that says a number of things: One is that no one is alone out there, and another is to emphasize the fact that we can communicate, we can agree, disagree, we can build and we can rebuild our CN. Part of this effort will be state specific threads in any portal, web site, or MyPoliticalSpace that may eventually emerge from this effort. State Chairpersons will join these local threads, and meld the various inputs into a coherent state recommendation that addresses social, cultural, economic or political tyranny being perpetrated by the Democrats, or plans for same.

Public Information

From all of this a Public Information Department will be developed, and charged with exposing any political malfeasance that is being perpetrated. The basis for this is that many either do not have time to surf the internet. They may not have the time or energy to try and find news and information that affects them. Perhaps by habit, they tune into the main stream media, and are lulled by the dulcet tones of these outlets. The information will arrive at member’s computers on a regular basis, will be brief, and will be informative. They may be commentary, film or links as is necessary. At all time the governing body of CN shall insure that any information sent to members is accurate, honest, and vetted for egregiously malicious content. Par to the Public Information Department’s mandate will be to track Presidential and Congressional actions that may negatively affect conservatives and unduly benefit liberals.

Legal Assistance

An important, and perhaps the most important, area that is ripe with opportunities is the law. We will recruit at least 25 conservative attorneys who are willing to act as our own ACLU. There are currently a number of attorney groups doing this, so it may be possible to form a constructive liaison with them. There is no doubt that liberal judges, as well as the new president shall make every effort to change our Constitution to their benefit and to our detriment. We must have legal assistance to fight this type of creeping rot.

As mentioned previously, solid legal advice must be available to assist in the development of CN. The type of organization, the corporate veil so to speak, must be one that is immune to the attacks we know will come from the Left – all of the left.

Organization & Executive Committee

There can be no organized action in any large group without leadership. Thus an Executive Committee will act as a Board of Directors, and maintain the Goals and Objectives established in CN’s charter. Development of an Executive Committee shall be a major first task, if this idea should come to fruition. We imagine a specific structure here. Major efforts need an organization, and a chain of command. Without this, chaos will ensue, and efforts will result in minimal success. While corporations have often been maligned, they are a necessary part of any organized body. Part of the Executive Committee’s responsibilities will be to distribute funds to each State Chairperson so that each one can carry our their assigned duties. A fair and equitable funding mechanism shall be established by the Executive committee. Prior o finalizing same all State Chairpersons will offer suggestions and guidance in this.

The Executive Committee shall have a subcommittee that acts as a Rapid Response Team (RRT). When the president or the Democratic majority suggest any legislation that will harm the United States, the RRT will alert the nation. Items that come to mind as most likely action items include, but are not limited to 1^st and 2^nd amendment rights, the Fairness Doctrine, Executive Orders, etc. Each alarm identified by the RRT will become a priority item, and a strategy and set of tactics to organize members of CN and other Conservative groups shall be developed which will be sent to all State Chair persons for immediate action.

A time line needs to be developed for the launch of CN. One year from the inauguration of the new president of the United States seems like a reasonable goal. This does not mean that nothing will be done in the mean time. As soon as we are a legal entity, work to take America back from the Liberal Democrats shall begin.

December 10, 2008

The Arrogance of Arrogance: The Joy of Hubris

2008-08-03T16:59:00.000-07:00

I state: This is the article for which you have been waiting. Waiting I might add with great expectations during this election season. Now that I am here, clarity on this topic is guaranteed. I say this because before me, there was no one who could do this as clearly and definitively as I. Thus, it is entirely understandable that you see me, and only me, as the one able to lead you. I want to thank you for your willingness to appreciate me for whom I am – that person who will show you the way. What way, you may ask. The way I bring proposes a new vision of writing, a changed grammatical context, and a new paradigm whereby all who cannot write are supported by all who can.

Sound familiar? A few changes might make it even more familiar:

"This (pointing to himself) is the person for which you have been waiting. Waiting I might add with great expectations during this election season. Now that I am here, clarity on any topic or issue is guaranteed. I say this because before me, there was no one who could do this as clearly and definitively as I. Thus, it is entirely understandable that you see me, and only me, as the one able to lead you. I want to thank you for your willingness to appreciate me for whom I am – that person who will show you the way. What way, you may ask. The way I bring proposes a new vision of hope, a changed global context, and a new paradigm whereby all who cannot are supported by all who can.

Some might say I am arrogant, or that it is my hubris that will destroy my candidacy as I strive to assume the mantle of President Elect of the United States of America. How can they say this with a straight face? There is no one but me to even consider. Actually there is a Vice President to chose, but he or she is really not that important as it is me who is going to bring peace and prosperity back to this country. Who am I that I can make these promises? I am Barack. I am the one who you need, and without whom you as a nation will flounder, and remain unloved. “

A great deal has been written in the past few weeks about Mr. Obama’s hubris, and his belief that he, and only he, can save us from ourselves. An exercise that is instructive in this regard is to enter the words “Obama + Arrogance” into Google’s search engine. Within a few seconds 1,780,000 references and articles are made available. Apparently I am not the only one concerned about this topic. In that regard, there is probably little I can add that is not already been addressed. Let’s face it. When the Boston Globe’s Blog has an Obama Arrogance watch, and the Washington Post publishes articles that question whether or not Obama is too taken with himself to actually address issue of national import, the Obama campaign has a problem. Before I add my perspective on this, here are a few takes that readers here may have missed.

Perhaps one of the clearest indications [my note: that Obama’s arrogance may be out of control] emerged last week from the world of late-night comedy. David Letterman offered his “Top Ten Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident.” “When Letterman is doing ‘Top Ten’ lists about something, it has officially entered the public consciousness,” said Dan Schnur, a political analyst from the University of Southern California and the communications director in John McCain’s 2000 campaign. “And it usually stays there for a long, long time.”

Following his nine-day, eight-country tour that effected the trappings of a presidential state visit, Mr. Obama has found himself in an unusual position: the butt of jokes. Even reporters joked about his assuming the mantle not only of the Presidency, but also of a savior. Jon Stewart teased that the presumptive Democratic nominee traveled to Israel to visit his birthplace at Bethlehem’s Manger Square. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd amplified the McCain campaign’s private nickname for Obama (“The One”). Even Susan Ostrich has opined” 'Arrogance Will Not Help Get Obama Elected'

The Washington Post reported reports that in a closed pep talk session with US House Democrats Tuesday evening, Obama talked about his triumphant visit to Europe and declared, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Other reports about this comment by Obama indicate that this amazing remark was rather disturbing to many. Perhaps the House Democrats were not ready for the Second Coming, at least not this soon.

[It is important to note that neither Stewart, Dowd, Estrich nor the Washington Post are Republican operatives!]

Obama is walking a fine line between confident and cocky. Once at pains to present himself as presidential, Obama now faces criticism for doing it too well.

Perhaps the best of all 1,780,000 Arrogance-Obama related pieces is that of Gerard Baker who introduced his piece as follows:

“And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow... “

History often repeats itself, and does so with boring regularity when politicians are involved. Obama and his devoted acolytes organized and carried out a “Triumph”, a triumph not terribly different from those organized in ancient Rome for military and political victories. Unlike Mr. Obama’s triumph, triumphs in Rome had to be approved by the Senate, and happened after a great victory, rather than before. It seems the Obama camp got carried away, and Mr. Obama and his ego were swept up in the frenzy.

Barack Obama is not the first politician to become infected with his own self worth. Perhaps the most famous of all politicians, one who rose from fairly poor circumstances, yet from a truly aristocratic family is Julius Caesar. What Caesar lacked in personal wealth was more than made up in genius, as well as ambition. That ambition took various forms. One example (Suetonius, “The Twelve Caesars” Penguin Books, NY,NY, 1979), but not necessarily unique in Caesar’s case, is his request to the tribunes of the people to be allowed to stand for Consul with Pompey while he, Caesar, was still in Spain, and thus unable to be in Rome as required for an election. Suetonius writes: “Their granting of this concession so fired Caesar’s ambitions that he neglected no expense in winning popularity, both as a private citizen and as a candidate… “

Fast forward to Caesar as he amasses power, manipulates the Senate, disposes of his enemies, and makes more enemies as he does this. Finally in 44 BC, he declares himself Dictator for Life. Or to put a more modern face on this, he declares himself the only person of political rank and genius to bring change and hope to the Roman Empire. Indeed he was a military genius – not at all similar to some current presidential candidates, and a person who believed in his own superiority – quite a bit like some political candidates.

His political platform consisted of many things, not the least of which was wealth redistribution, the break up of large land trusts, amassing a cadre of Senate colleagues who were loyal to him, and reducing the welfare roles. Unlike many of today’s politicians, he was smart enough to increase criminal penalties, introduce term limits of provincial governors, abolish labor unions, and destroy the existing tax system in favor of allowing provinces to directly collect taxes, and then pay the (federal) government tribute [Just like today!]

Comparing the new Caesar-like candidate who is the subject of this note to the original is difficult, if not impossible. In my opinion Julius Caesar, for all his faults, his chicanery, his tremendous political ambition, and his uncontrollable ego, was a true genius. While chicanery, political ambition, and uncontrollable ego are traits that fit nicely with the presumptuous Democratic candidate, the same cannot be said for genius.

___________________

ggda: August, 2008

Dear Mr. President...

2008-07-10T11:02:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. President (Or Whatever White House Staff Member Reads This)

You asked how we could change the hearts and minds of the voting public, and whether or not race is a primary factor. That is a good question, which, as you undoubtedly know, has no simple response.

My thoughts are that we need not change black votes any more than we need to change any vote. Some people will vote for Obama, or any black candidate, because they are black, and a Black candidate their candidate. They go no further than that, and have no interest in exploring the issues as they relate to all Americans. The same is true for Caucasians who vote for Mc Cain, or any other white candidate, because he is white. Both groups, Black, White, or whatever are ill-informed, easily led, and in some regards racists. We will not change their minds if the above mindset is as noted above.

Can we change enough votes to win both the presidential and the congressional races? I believe that is possible, but not in all venues. For instance changing voter’s minds in Liberal bastions like California, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc, is incredibly difficult. These large electoral vote states are targeted by Democrats who have large war chests, efficient machines, and populations too busy surviving to discern that they are being lied to by the best group of party hacks that exist. The only way to win these states is to go for the jugular. For instance, in addressing the energy issues at hand, i.e. gasoline and food prices, and the Democratic refusal to mitigate that by drilling everywhere is an issue crying out for leadership. I have addressed this in more detail below.

We need to take pages from the Liberal playbooks, in that we need to yell, scream, agitate, and sound the alarm in such a way that we shall be heard. Simultaneously, we need to take lower key approach for those refractive to the more militant approach. Thus, both ends of the spectrum as well as the great middle will be addressed and addressed with facts. In some ways it is like turning on the lights in a roach infested building. When the lights come on the roaches scatter. When off, the roaches fornicate, and have a grand old time in the dark. (Roaches = Liberal Democrats.) During this election season, we need to provide the light, and we must make sure it stays on all of the time.

In smaller states, where there are many voters still trying to decide which candidate(s) will alleviate their pain, we have a better chance. Somehow we need to find a few good men and women who are willing to address these issues in community forums, in letters to editors, in church groups, on Internet forums, and as you have done so successfully in person with anyone who will listen. If there were funding, we would take out adds in papers and on radio, and TV which specifically delineate all the areas where the Democrats have failed – Oil, gas, global warming, the war, health care, illegal immigration, carbon taxing, etc. Today I learned that the Congress’ approval rating is 7%. We need to ask why you would want to keep these rascals in power. What have they done? More importantly what have then not done?

Here is a bit on a possible platform to end the energy crisis, the war(s) and some of the economic slowdown:

1.) Drill everywhere there are oil deposits.- Announce that we have a plan to bring oil production up to 10,000,000 barrels/day (estimated reserves=200 billion barrels if Gull Island is included.). This is in addition to the oil currently being brought up by existing wells owned by United States Companies. Simultaneously announce that we will immediately begin to capture the approximately 600 billion cubit feet of natural gas we have in reserve. Announce plans for 20 new refineries. Most likely when these plans are announced, the price of crude oil will immediately decrease by 20-25%. Once all this is in place, and wells are pumping we can:

2.) Meet quietly with all oil producing countries, and tell them that we will work with them to preserve their oil based economies, if, and only if, they stop funding and supporting terrorist and terrorism. If they do not do, so we will stop purchasing any oil from them, and quietly tell them they can drink it for all we care. Furthermore, we will withdraw support and funding that is currently being sent to them, and we will cancel all contracts that supply weapons or weapon systems. We will assist friendly, non-terrorist states that have oil to acquire that oil in the most economical and ecological way possible.

3.) The second of these steps will significantly decrease illegal immigration. Mexico is an oil producing state, and should they not take dramatic steps to stop illegal emigration, we will no longer purchase same from them.

4.) As soon as the drilling and refining plans are in the works, announce plans for 20-25 new nuclear power plants. If necessary, overwrite environmental roadblocks that stop us from building nuclear plants. Assure the public that quality control will increase while we work with nuclear engineers to develop safe and more efficient plants. Once these are on line, we will see a significant reduction in fossil fuels used as energy for electricity.

5.) If numbers 1 through 4 are accomplished, we will have, to a great extent taken care of energy, terrorism, and the Democrats. We will also have an economic boom that will last for decades. Why? Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Additionally our young people will have new careers, new opportunities, and brighter futures. We will grow our new energy businesses to be net exporters of excess energy. The world will purchase energy from us. As Americans tend to do, we will also become experts in clean technologies to such an extent that the world that will expect not only a very low probability of pollution from these efforts. We will also export that technology world wide, and be heroes for it.

If Republicans announce some of these efforts, we do a number of things that will change voter’s minds. We will put the Democrats on the defensive. We will force them to admit they have no intention of reducing the cost of anything, and have no plan to do so. For a change, we, the Republicans will be promising "A chicken in every pot, from the savings in energy costs alone…" We will nail the Democrats on the fact that they seem to support only those things that will reduce our standards of living. Hopefully we will convince people that the only hope is to elect a strong Republican cohort. We, the people , will be responsible for making these Republican politicians keep their promises.

A pipe dream…maybe, but so was seceding from Great Britain.

We look for ward to hearing from you, Mr. President, and to discussing these issues.

Credits - A New Type

2008-05-21T14:51:00.000-07:00

Credits – A New Type

I have been a vocal opponent of Carbon Credits, no matter how hard the Left tries to justify them. Analysis of the scheme of selling credits to polluters results in one conclusion: It is a shell game developed to make the sellers of credits rich and the buyers of credits more irresponsible for the environmental havoc – real or imagined - that they cause or are accused of causing.

The idea of non polluting houses, farms, factories, cities and nations, accumulating credits to sell to polluters is strange to say the least. Ditto for the notion that planting trees as a way to garner credits is a worthwhile cause. This is especially the case when recent data has recently demonstrated that trees are actually polluters too, i.e. they release carbon dioxide. It has also been said that cows and other flatulent animals are polluting the planet. I am not sure whether or not a non-gaseous species can be used to make the gas emitting animals carbon neutral, i.e. can a farmer who has a herd of farting cows, buy credits from a farmer with non-farting horses?

Another tricky problem is that some data has now been accumulated that the act of humans consuming food is a very serious problem vis-à-vis pollution. That is obvious and we are unsure of why it took this long to come to this conclusion. Since all foods despoil not only the land on which they are grown or raised, but as they are not terribly mobile in and of themselves, need to be transported in fuel guzzling, inefficient machines – trucks and trains. How a carbon credit system that addresses this issue can be developed is tricky. Who is the payer and who is the payee? This requires more thought since all humans eat, eliminate, and thereby pollute.

If one does the math, it is not terribly difficult to see that the buying and selling of carbon credits does nothing to lower emissions in the absolute sense. From a Capitalistic perspective it is a very creative idea, with only one end point – profit.

Does this mean that all “Credit” systems are nothing more than get-rich schemes? Certainly not. In fact one idea comes to mind that will actually save millions of dollars, increase public safety, reduce crime, and in many ways do away with neighborhoods that breed criminals. What is that you say? It is a system of Criminal Justice Credits, or CJC’s.

Imagine the positive impact on society if a person of good repute, who has never broken any law, were able to sell his CJC’s to a person convicted of a crime? For instance, my mother is 93 years old. She has never broken a law of which I am aware. Consequently she has amassed a very large number of credits in this regard. For discussion purposes, let’s assign one CJC for each crime free year. Thus she has amassed 93 credits. Let’s further assign a value of $5000/credit/year. Hence, her “Credit Bank Account” is worth $465,000. Obviously each person who has accumulated CJC’s will do so according to their age and behavior over a lifetime. Consequently each person’s account may well differ.

The following scenario can be used to demonstrate the use of this idea: A teenager in a town (my Mom’s or otherwise) commits armed robbery. If convicted, he will surely see jail time. But wait! Why does that have to happen? Perhaps he can purchase CJC credits from my mother. He can do so either before trial, and obviate the need for a trial or lawyers. Otherwise, he can purchase credits after trial, if convicted. The judge, or an established set of guidelines used by the judge, can determine how many credits need to be purchased to keep this fine young fellow out of jail. If he or his attorney succeeds in making the purchase, a number of benefits accrue not only to him but also to society. These include but are not limited to the following:

He does not go to jail, thereby saving the processing fees.
He does not take up a jail cell.
If he has a job he will not necessarily lose it.
In this case, a senior citizen is not only enriched, but benefits from her exemplary life, thereby reducing the burden of living on a meager Social Security check.
The attorneys in the case will be paid by both the defendant and plaintiff, thereby enriching both.

Imagine this happening all over America. New prisons will not have to be built as often or at all. The idea of remaining crime free, and being paid for that, will make not committing a crime pay. Every level of society will benefit to a certain extent. The crime free life will take on a certain panache. New careers based on CJC’s, i.e. how they are accumulated and sold or purchased, will be available to all. Defense attorneys as well as prosecutors will have a new set of arrows in their quiver. Law schools will finally have a new offering in their curriculum, i.e. the application of law to the accumulation and selling of CJC’s. CJC purchases and sales will be regulated, and comport with a set of sentencing guidelines, enriching lawyers even further.

Each type of crime will be associated with a certain number of CJC credits. For example, misdemeanors of various sorts will have a CJC value placed on them. Likewise for felonies. Felonies will cost more than misdemeanors, and depending upon the type of felony, quite a bit more. The number of times that a felony can be exchanged for a CJC will need to be defined, as will the number of times a specific crime can be off-bought. Certain felonies will not be eligible for CJC’s. All of this will need legislation. Specialists in this part of the law will be in great demand.

Since the buying and selling of CJC credits will reduce the need for prisons, it will probably be necessary to offer “Transfer of Knowledge” training to criminal justice professionals whose jobs will be eliminated as the number of prisons is reduced. Those who once spent their time refereeing gang and drug related fights in prison will be able to become involved in assisting law abiding citizens make a profit from their law abiding ways.

Additionally, the cost of justice will be offset. It seems only reasonable that a tax on credits bought and sold must be instituted, whereby the courts and municipalities will be enriched. In some cases, we imagine that courts can be eliminated in favor of drive through kiosks where CJC’s can be redeemed. If that is the case a “Closed Court Fund” can be established to assist court officers find new work.

Families will no longer be broken up when a family member is convicted of a crime. While it is possible that all family members may be criminals, it is not likely. Therefore, a Mom or Dad can use his accumulated credits to help a son or daughter stay out of prison. Of course the opposite may be the case if Mom and Dad are the criminals. Aunts and Uncles, friends and acquaintances can also become involved. The possibilities are endless. As CJC’s bring family and friends together, the need to commit crime may well be reduced.

Carbon credits are ephemeral, but CJC’s are real. They represent a real life opportunity to legally purchase a “get out of jail” card. Anyone can accumulate them, not only the wealthy. A poor, but honest person, can trade in CJC’s as easily as a wealthy one. By doing so he or she may break the ever tightening spiral of poverty and inequality. On the reverse side of the coin, even a rich but honest person will have the same opportunity. For those rich in CJC’s, there is nothing to stop them donating a credit or more to a person or family in need, thereby continuing the spirit of the “Great Society.”

In summary: By not committing a crime life would be enriched. Another person committing a crime can also enrich life in more ways than one. Imagine CJC’s as a link between the solid citizens, and the criminal element. This link represents a “Win-Win” opportunity for everyone.

There you have it. A credit scheme for all to use, and from which every one can profit, and... it’s good for the environment.

ggda

Midway through the journey of our life...

2008-05-21T14:32:00.000-07:00

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita...

(Midway through the journey of our life...)

We go to Los Angeles because there is no other option. Ever since a family member became ill, we go there monthly to visit, and to assure that she receives high quality care. Achieving that end is in itself difficult for many reasons, and could be the subject of an entire piece. One major concern is the over regulation extant in the health care industry, which impacts patient care in that it reduces time with patients and increases time taking notes. What makes our high quality care difficult to achieve is the preponderance of non-English speaking nurses and nursing associates at the convalescent hospital. Don't get me wrong, these are nice people, who would probably seem even nicer if we could understand them. This is especially the case when they speak Spanish or Tagalog.

Furthermore, this note does not address the millions of immigrants - legal or otherwise – who do not have enough feeling for the United States to learn the language of the country where they live, and where they make a living. It does, however, address the difficulty in understanding English speaking Americans, who seem unable to express themselves intelligently, and unable or unwilling to discern fact from fiction as they take sides in the upcoming Presidential election, or in generally assessing the political landscape.

We were unlucky enough to be seated next to two of these types at dinner in Los Angeles the other night. Completing the partial quote from Dante’ in the title of this article pretty much summarizes how we felt about these people as we endured dinner sitting next to these fellows. Surely this applies”

“Midway through the journey of our life, I found

Myself in a dark wood, for I had strayed

From the straight pathway to this tangled ground.”

Inferno, Dante Alighieri,

translated by Michael Parma

Replace “I” with “we”, “myself” with “ourselves” in the above quote and you have a three line stanza that perfectly summarizes our unintended dinner companions. They are in a dark wood, and they indeed have strayed from any pathway, straight or tangled.

The conversation we overheard the other night is detailed below, as are the responses we would have made if we wanted to engage these gentlemen. The latter course of action, however, would have most likely caused a bit of a stir in a public place. Instead, we decided to take notes and share this with our readers. As you read this, please keep the above Dante quote in mind. The characters in this “poem” are Person #1, Person #2 and Observer. ( I will not attempt to make anything rhyme!)

Person #1: "The oil companies are ripping us off each and every day. I know how to deal with this. Capture each oil company executive, put them in Dodger Stadium, bring in the Taliban and let the Taliban have a go at them. That should teach them! If we do that, the price will go down immediately.

Person #2: That would work. Do you know the incredible profits they make! God! Something needs to be done.

Person #1: "It's been only during the last two years that the price of gasoline has been escalating. It's Bush and his oil cronies in Saudi Arabia." Besides, if we got rid of the Saudis we would get our oil from Venezuela. You know their oil is the best!

Person #2: You’re right, it has only been in the last 2 years that oil and gas prices have risen. Look at the price of gasoline. It’s Bush.

Observer: This approach to solving the oil “crisis” is simplistic for a number of reasons. Throughout this discussion they have branded President Bush as a war monger and planet destroyer without actually ever exploring the causes or potential causes of high oil and gas prices. How handing oil company executives over to the Taliban makes sense is difficult to comprehend, unless as we suspect these people have absolutely no idea of who the Taliban is, and what they represented.

The profits they moan about tell us that they have not actually read any corporate financial disclosure, nor have they even read any article from any source that actually cites the profit margin of oil companies – ca. 9.0-9.5%. Apparently they have never bothered to understand that 9% of a very large number (gross sales) is a large number (profits).

Since the 2006 elections, the Democrats, led by Ms. Pelosi & Mr. Reid have been in charge. When they took office, gas prices were in the $70/barrel range. Now they approach $125/barrel – a 75-78% increase. Needless to say these intellectually gifted individuals never mentioned Anwar or any oil reserve extant here in the good old USA. They are blessedly unaware that we have oil in the ground in the USA that approaches 160,000,000,000 barrels and propane gas that is in the trillions of cubic foot range. They do not know of the Bakken/Dakota find. They seem unaware that refineries are not available to refine the oil even if we could bring it up. Anwar was never mentioned, nor was the fact that Democrats have been vetoing drilling here for more years than President Bush has been in office.

The frosting on this part of the cake is that one of the parties (Person #2) is associated with Tiffany, and drives a Rolls Royce. (Disclosed during the conversation). Profits at Tiffany are nothing to sneeze at, but I imagine that gassing up the old Rolls is a bit of a stretch on the paltry income resultant from selling baubles to the rich. This whining brings to mind another stanza in Canto I of Dante’s Inferno”

“As a man is eager in prosperity

But when time brings him losses can be found

Giving way to weeping and misery…”

Person #1: Did you hear Bush’s speech today when he was in Israel? What an idiot!. When I was watching CNN they played his remarks. The guy is a dope, and has no idea of what appeasement is all about. He’s there on the 60^th anniversary of Israel and is talking about Iran, and terrorists. He is making a political statement, and bashing Obama. Presidents should not do that. Clinton and Pelosi made statements and told him off, as they should. What a jerk.

Person #2: Silent!

Observer: History neither is, nor ever was, a strong point with Person #1. He apparently has never read the progression from Baldwin to Chamberlain to Churchill just prior to WWII. Nor has he read more current information about Saddam and his open refusal to take the UN seriously, with the result that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died at his hand. The UN appeased him, cajoled him, winked at him and he killed more and more of his own people. Additionally he mocked the sanctions and got rich doing so. Again the UN did nothing. Iran today is another case in point. While we speak softly, Iran carries a big stick. It’s getting bigger the more we refuse to stop appeasing that rogue state. President Bush was simply stating a fact, and some – Obama and Carter – heard ringing in their ears. It is a fundamental concept that one only reacts to implied or real criticism if it applies to you. In this case, given Obama’s retort, President Bush’ comments were right on the mark.

Person #1: Have you seen the situation In Myanmar? Those people need a lesson in how to get things done – especially the military junta. We need to send in a few [US Army] Rangers and take out a few guys there. That will get the ball rolling.

Person #2: That’s not too easy, but we do need to feed these people.

Person #1: We can do it. It would not take much.

Observer: This exchange, while brief was instructive. President Bush, and by implication anyone who agrees with him, is a hawk who sees the use of force as the only means of getting things done. Interestingly, sending US Rangers to a foreign country to “take out a few guys” is acceptable, as long as we can feed disaster victims. Where is the logic? Where is the careful thought relative to the political implications of such an act? There is none. These guys know what needs to be done. That’s it.

As Thomas Sowell demonstrated in “A Conflict of Visions”, we are dealing with people who are unconstrained in their beliefs, and who “know” that if we simply left things to them the “correct” result would follow.

I could go on for a while as these two people analyzed the falling dollar, and the price of gold. They seemed to have opinions about just about anything, and these opinions were never based on any empirical information. They were regurgitations of the mainstream media, or reflections of personal political leanings, based not on fact but on emotions and theory.

Admittedly, all of our own prejudices come into play whenever we address political issues. That’s normal, and we do enjoy political discourse with people who do not necessarily agree with us. What was interesting about this “conversation” is that it took place in Beverly Hills, at a fine restaurant, and involved people who were by most common parameters, successful. I suppose the error we make is that we assume “successful people” are politically educated in addition to any other education they may have received. We came away from this encounter more convinced that there is little hope that we will ever have a voter populace that is informed, objective and willing to take the time to uncover the facts prior to making decisions about how they become involved in the political process.

We are constantly amazed when we mention that both Obama and Clinton intend to raise a variety of taxes, socialize health care, and generally promote Liberal platforms that will be costly, and the response from supporters of one or both of these presidential candidates is “Really?” “Why?”

At times I believe a refrain from the ‘60’s and 70’s is still relevant – “There is no hope…”

Maybe Santa Can Help...

2006-12-10T11:06:00.000-08:00

During a recent vacation I had an opportunity to pay more attention to the news and other assorted idiocy that poses as discourse on American television. Understand that about 20 years ago, for lack of anything interesting or meaningful, we discarded our television. Nevertheless, we never lost touch with the world about us. Actually, we began to realize that the real world was nothing like the one commonly portrayed by the news networks and other assorted drivel displayed by major networks for the public.

When on vacation I watch TV a bit to see if anything has changed in 20 years. In short, little has changed! The biggest change has been the emergence of the alternative media, i.e. talk radio, “The Internet,” and a single news network offering fairly intelligent (but by no means unbiased) political news, information and opinion.

Consequently, I spend quite a bit of time reading, listening and then digesting what is said and written about events that impact my world and my worldview.

The problem with keeping up with local, state, and world events is that there are few to whom I can go to voice my agreement, disagreement or just plain confusion about events happening both in the United States and abroad. I can’t write to either of my Senators (Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer) with any reasonable expectation of an intelligent response. It has been scientifically proven that they are both brain dead. I can attest to this personally in the case of Feinstein, as we once prepared dinner for her at the request of a close friend who, God forbid, supported her. It was a very small group of seven people and I sat directly across the table from Ms. Feinstein for about two hours. The overwhelming sense I was left with is that she is one of the dumbest people I have ever met!

Letters to the President or Vice President are electronically answered with a limp message about how wonderful it is that I wrote, but how busy the White House is, blah, blah, blah… Ditto for Chairpersons of committees, Speakers of the House, Senate majority leaders, etc. So here I was, in Arizona, frustrated as hell that the same nonsense, in living color, was unfolding around the world and no one was doing much about it except talk. Most important (to me at least) was the clarity with which I saw potential solutions to these matters. If only I could find one person to whom I could voice my frustration. If only one person would at least listen to what seemed like specific and reasonable courses of action targeted to the world trouble spots.

As I flipped through channels in our room while waiting to leave for dinner, Christmas commercials were everywhere. Suddenly it occurred to me that maybe there was someone who would listen, someone who could bring me what I was looking for – clarity, action and solutions. At first blush it seemed too much to ask – He was particularly busy at this time of year and had an awful lot to do before Christmas, and worst of all, he just might be a Democrat! Nevertheless, I decided that writing or calling Washington, Sacramento, and my local politicians was futile, so why not try someone who always seemed to find time to read his mail at this time of year.

It was then that I penned my (now famous) letter to Santa. Rather than ask for many different things, I would target only one area of concern, and hoped that Santa had the wherewithal to deliver. I had nothing to lose since no one else had done much to date in the area that troubles me most.

Dear Santa:

I decided to make a list - a Christmas list - of some things that you could help me with if you have time. If I receive any of my gift requests, it would help me realize that there is something that can do to help stop the march of Islam (Militant and otherwise) across America and the world. Here is my list:

1.) Close all Muslim schools in the United States. They more often than not preach hate, and are anti-American. Now idiot converts to Islam are trying to blow-up shopping malls. These Muslim schools have got to go – now! Please send our government whatever it takes to realize that their Political Correctness in this matter is going to eventually get a lot of people killed.

2.) Announce a boycott of all news media who refuse to tell readers and listeners the truth - about anything. This is a tough one, but you can help me do it if anyone can.

3.) Continue the practice of destroying Islam fanatics in other countries. To wit: remove Al-Sadr, remove Ademinijhad, and remove Hamas and Hisbollah leaders. (Remove means to send them, via a one-way ticket, to where their 72 virgins reside.) As an aside Santa, I need help with something else that puzzles me. If there are about 1 billion Muslims in the world, and if about half are male. How can there be enough virgins to go around? After all, 72 times even a half billion is a LOT of virgins.

4.) Increase United States Special Forces in Iraq to at least 20,000, and change the rules of engagement to include doing anything that works to eliminate Al Qaeda personnel. Anything means just that, anything relative to the intention of killing as many as possible in any way possible.

5.) Destroy the myth of the ISG. Its chairman, James Baker is an anti-Semite, and a panderer. He has about as much a place on a group of this type as Jimmy Carter has running the Pentagon. A major aspect of this single objective would be to discredit everything the group has said, and to do so by providing facts. For example, we do not talk with countries that provide the weapons to insurgents, aka terrorists, who kill our (and our allies’) troops. Instead we should provide date of manufacturer and factory in Iran from whence the weapons came. This is but a single example, Santa. Perhaps, with my compliments,, you can send a fact sheet to all members of the ISG because their recent conclusions and recommendations are certainly short on facts.

If you have access to anything from The Wizard of OZ, perhaps you can send Baker and Hamilton a brain. A heart would be good too, but courage probably need not be bothered with for these two. I imagine even you have your limits.

6.) Schedule a meet with President Bush and ask him to tell us when he will start behaving like the CIC – after all, he’s halfway through his second term and he’s still tiptoeing to the tune of his opponents rather than using the force he has available to stop the war in Iraq dead in its tracks, destroy the terrorists, and let the world know that the dumbest thing anyone can do is screw around with the United States!

Could you give the President the courage (see #5 above) to demand a date when we will tell Iran to stop its rabble rousing and dirty deeds? If that doesn’t do the trick, use our conventional, and, if necessary, nuclear weapons to turn Iran into a parking lot (shades of Barry Goldwater!), and turn their dream of nuclear superiority in the region into a nightmare (i.e., see #6 above).

7.) Drop a few million leaflets as you go about your rounds telling people that no one should be subjected to Sharia Law. It is horrid, barbarous, and as far as it being used here, does not comport with the Constitution of the United States. Sharia is not that different in spirit from the racial laws that Hitler enacted. They target the weak, expand the power of the rulers, and curtail many aspects of normal healthy human development. Please think about this. Ask you elves about it. How would they feel if tomorrow they were subjected to Sharia Law?

I have been a good person this year and know that millions of others around the world have been good too. No one should suffer from Imams who hate, from Sharia law that eventually kills not only people but freedom, or from terrorists here, in Iraq, in Iran or anywhere else.

I am not sure if you can help, Santa, but as I wrote above, no one in Washington seems to be either able or willing to make this “wish list” a reality. I guess you are my last resort.

That’s it for this letter. I know it’s a tall order on such short notice, but please do your best.

Thank you and God speed.

Jerry

PS: Drive safely.

PPS: I have another list for North Korea and China, but I’ll save that for next Christmas.

England, Spain,Portugal and Germany vs. Israel

2006-09-04T10:50:00.000-07:00

To: Margaret Becket - Environmental Minister (England)

From: Speriamo - The United States of America

Re: Refusal to allow Israeli planes to land In England if carrying weapons

Date: Monday 04 September 2006

-------------------------------

Dear Minister Becket:

We want to thank you for your efforts to foster Terrorism and death in the Middle East. In a single swoop you (and your estwhile colleagues in Spain, Portugal, Germany and Italy) have struck a blow for Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, and have joined them in their efforts to destroy Israel. It is clear that anti-Semitism is doing very well in England, as well as in and other European countries. The road to Islamic Fundamentalism is being paved in these countries by cowardice and betrayal. We also understand that England has too many Muslims to be brave, or to act as Mr. Churchill would have acted. God forbid that you stand up to Muslims in your country and say, "We must allow Israel to land in England. We do this to promote Democracy in not only that country, but in other Mid-East Countries. If that upsets you and the appeasers in Europe and the United Nations (UN), so be it." Unfortunately, we cannot imagine England having this kind of courage at this time.

You, Madame, are nothing more than a representative of Kofi Annan, the ultimate appeaser, and the embodiment of the new Nazism that lies at the root of all UN actions relative to Israel. How do you sleep at night? How do you hold your head up? How can you call yourself a Minister of a free nation? You are not. By your actions, England has become an extension of other frightened European countries - lost, cowardly countries, whose days as a Democratic countries are certainly numbered unless you begin to realize what is at stake.

Why not stand up, become a beacon to the free world, and admit that you were in error, and now would welcome Israel, and allow them to land planes carrying much needed arms into your country? Certainly safety precautions need to be in place in order for refueling to occur safely, but that is a formality, and can be done rapidly and well. While we do not know if you are old enough to remember Franklin Roosevelt's courage in offering "Lend Lease" to England at the outset of World War II, we do know that without it England may well be speaking German today. Additionally instead of having kind and courteous police offering assistance to people in need, you would have jackbooted thugs responsible for ethnic cleansing, and more.

In case you wonder, we at Speriamo are not Israeli, nor are we Jewish. We are Americans who love Freedom, and hate injustice. We realize that today America often stands alone in the battle against terror, in spite of lip service to the contrary on the part of other countries. Please remember that when the next world conflict comes, and it will, England will once again need assistance from other free countries - if there are any left!

Note:The original news story about this problem was found in both www.YNETNews.com and www.jpost.com during the first week of September, 2006.

Very Truly Yours,

Speriamo

CC: Portugal, Spain, Germany, Italy

The People's Militia - An Exercise in Sanity

2006-08-27T20:06:00.000-07:00

Even a cursory look into world affairs shows that quite a few groups have resorted to an age old technique to address problems in their universe. For hundreds, if not thousands of years, leaders of various groups gathered about them men and materials capable of doing their bidding – whatever that was.

Romans employed mercenaries to fight their battles, and keep the rabble in check through out the world. Sulla and Pompey come to mind as they maintained large “armies” loyal to them. One reason Sulla was so successful was the fact that his militia kept Rome’s politicians in check. There were disadvantages – not necessarily to Sulla - to this method of maintaining the status quo. Sulla marched on Rome, became a Dictator for life and impaled the heads of his enemies on pikes lining the way to the Senate.

Lately we have seen the resurgence of militia – armies by another name - in many Muslim countries. The al-Mehdi militia of the Shia Hojetoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq is often in the news for the murder and mayhem it causes to both American troops, and Iraqi citizens. The Somali Islamic Militia is bent on killing anyone who does not agree with them.

Hezbollah, the surrogate Iranian terror militia, makes headlines everyday, as the body count of their intifada radiates throughout Israel. They have perfected killing by teaming up with Iran and Syria in an international tag team match aimed at the destruction of Israel, and eventually all Christian territories and nations.

What do all these militia have in common? They are not nation states, nor do they formally represent nation states. They are not armies in the sense of a national army. They are rogue groups whose mission in life is destroying those who do not think like them, feel like them or worship like them. They act outside of government oversight even though in many cases they are financed by governments. They are the “made men” of Islam. They are killers, and must be eliminated by any means available, and soon.

So how do in the United States deal with Militia that cause death and destruction? We do this in various ways. Police target the leaders of drug cartels, the mob bosses, and the gang leaders in order to break up the organization. Throughout history, a tactic in wars has been to kill the leader of a command and control center, thus effectively cutting off the leadership. The best thing about this approach is that it works.

Perhaps when we deal with Islamofascist Militia we need to take a page from the book used in the Mid-East. Saudi Arabian criminal law allows victims of a crime to determine the punishment for the crime against them. In Saudi Arabia, if a member of your family is murdered by someone, you get the opportunity to either murder him, or suggest how you would like the punishment to be meted out. Suppose we use this method to deal with the Hezbollah Militia. They targeted Israel and its cities, and in return Israel bombs them. It may be more effective to target the individual responsible for the decision to bomb Israeli cities, rather than bomb entire cities in attempts to kill the leaders. Using the Saudi model, we would simply be choosing the means to punish whoever perpetrated the war, or terrorist act. One choice would be to remove the leadership in a clean, personal, surgical strike. That is cost effective, saves lives, and is relatively safe for the operatives who are chosen to carry out this task. All we need are politicians and leaders who see that the best way to kill a snake is to behead it rather than try to train it.

So, should our goal be to eliminate all militia? Not so fast, as there may be a place in the world for militia. Militia seem to form whenever the government under which people live either ignores citizen’s problems, makes problems worse, or supports another group that does the same. Most of the time, when that happens in America, we usually bitch to a friend, wife or colleague, and move on to the next thing we must address. Foolishly, we toil on hoping for a better outcome next time, but usually we do nothing. It is the author’s position that the time for doing nothing is past. .

There already are militias in the United States. Some are not called Militia, they are called Gangs. In part, Gangs form because they have no avenue to redress grievances other than violence. They organize along quasi military lines, have a command and control organization, and specific objectives. Their actions to address grievances may not be reasonable from many perspectives. That is beside the point. The point is that Gangs act like Militia, and they get the job done. They are often crude, but quite effective. Can we take a page or two from their book? Why not?

How many times have we felt impotent in the face of bureaucratic incompetence? How many times have we sat around with friends and loved ones, and wondered what, if anything, we could do to effect change in government agencies that do nothing to improve our lives? Many of us have felt the bludgeoning done by Town Councils, County Supervisors, Selectmen, City Planners, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Fire Marshal, and the State Department of This and That. Others, millions in fact, are frustrated by rampant, and seemingly unsolvable, problems such as illegal immigration, a problem basically ignored by pandering politicians. Only a militia – The Minutemen – has had the courage to take on both the politicians and the INS.

There may be a solution – Form a new American Militia that operates on a variety of levels. It is possible for a citizen’s militia to stop a Supervisor or Selectman from promulgation law and regulation that only burden people – organize and show up at meetings. What if, the EPA had to face an angry citizen militia whenever they declared a “crooked tailed ergot” as an endangered species? What if retribution for that act was not far away? What if City Planners tried to stop a necessary shopping mall, church or park, when the citizenry wanted it, and as a result were faced with an angry militia? What if the militia were organized in such a way that they had a chain of command, monitored events in an area, had a budget, and refused to allow their area to be overrun by anyone who did not have their best interests at hand?

More importantly, what if we had a voice in important of issues of the day, like the security of America? What if we had been able to discuss the Israeli-Hezbollah-Iran conflict with our representatives, as well as the State Department and told them not to cave, not to give in to world pressure? What if millions of Americans from a variety of states participated in a message that says “not over our dead bodies” will you empower Hezbollah, and do so in conjunction with the morally bankrupt United Nations. What if Iran knew that there were millions of Americans ready to vote “YES” to blowing its nuclear facilities sky high if Iran does not comport with international will in this matter?

Anarchy some may say, Not in America! Why not? We don’t have to resort to drive by shootings, car bombs, or suicide bombers. No we don’t – at least not yet. We can, however, euphemistically tar and feather someone. While we cannot take a liberal Politician, lock him in a room, and not let him leave until all have had a chance to voice their free speech imperative, we can attack him with our pens and computers. We also organize and gather in large numbers at meetings, rabble rouse, disrupt, and act just like Liberal Activists.

So what can we do to develop a type of Militia that effectively addresses government? How do we demand law and regulation that makes sense, understands the dangerous world we live in, and places the nation’s safety above political aspirations, recognizes who our friends are and deals effectively with our enemies? Many are fed up with the political correctness that catalyzes congressional actions, and the lack of moral clarity that seems to permeate both the Senate and the Congress. So why not declare Political Correctness (PA) DOA?

Most Americans know that the latest threats from radical Muslims are very real, but how much has been done about it? If our politicians are locked in mortal combat with each other, how do we get their attention and remind them that the threats are real, and we don’t give a damn about their posturing. We want a plan that says “If Iran does X we do Y, and we do it in Z minutes.” We want to profile anyone who may enjoy killing Americans, and do not give a damn if certain groups call us racists because of it. I think it safe to say that most of us would rather be called a racist, and be safe, than to keep quiet, close our eyes, and be dead.

How do we get that message to our representatives? Anyone who has tried to contact their Congressman or Senator, at either State of Federal levels knows how impossible that has become. The usual reply is a “Thank you for your correspondence … We enjoy hearing from you … etc, etc, etc. ….” , and nothing happens. We curse and wonder why we wasted the time to write. One of the latest examples of the incredible hubris demonstrated by our elected officials is their absolute unwillingness to listen to citizens, and to respond to the concerns about illegal immigration. Basically the responses demonstrate the politicians’ interests, and their take on the matter. Somewhere in the response is the intimation that we just don’t get it, and should not even try to understand the complexity of this, or frankly any other issue, so stop bothering them.

This is only one example that reflects the reality that our politicians no longer represent us. They represent themselves. What would happen if an organized group of citizens descended on them, tied up their U.S Mail, email accounts and Internet web sites, demanding that the issue at hand, whatever it is, be resolved in a manner that pleases the citizenry?

One way is to develop our own gang. That gang would be a militia, a solid American Citizen Militia (ACM) that takes as its modus operandi the concept that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword. Would that we could have a few million subscribers at a $2.00 each membership? Would that they were localized in each Congressional and Senatorial district? Would that there was a Blog and Web Site that constantly hectored all the politicians in the United States, the Liberal Media, the United Nations and whoever needed to be set straight, and never let up? Could there be? Why not?

The technology is there, computers, as well as the appropriate software abound. Mass e-mailings, coupled to media presentations, both the main stream and alternative media, and print outlets can be used. Can we do it? Did the Founding Fathers do it? Did the Constitutional Congress do it? Did the North defeat the South? Did the Yankees ever beat the Red Sox? Did Reagan beat the Evil Empire? To all of these we say “YES”. We can do it – The new American Citizen Militia. Get out your pens, and prepare to use them!

There is no other choice…..

Jerry De Angelis
August, 2006

It's Time To Declare Victory...

2006-02-19T11:02:00.000-08:00

Introduction

The War on Poverty started by President Johnson in 1964 has surpassed the War of the Roses (32 years) in duration, and if we continue with this unrealistic effort to eliminate poverty we will soon approach the 100 Years War (116 years) Victory in war is usually measured by how many of the enemy are killed or wounded, how many of your troops are killed or wounded, how much territory is won, and who will determine the peace. In the War on Poverty, we are not shooting anyone – at least intentionally - nor are we trying to take territory from a sworn enemy in the everyday sense. So the combatants are “Poverty”, and “the Poor”. If there are more Poor at the end of the day Poverty wins, and visa versa..

After 40 years of fighting Poverty some, more often than not those on the on the Left, have determined that there are more poor today than ever, and we need to spend even more money to continue this fight. It seems that if we are still losing after 40 years the effort is doomed. We need to admit this, and move on knowing that we can never eliminate poverty. Another thought is that at least some of the poor were formerly Middle Class citizens who have joined the ranks of the Poor as a result of paying, through excessive taxation, for the War on Poverty.

A contrary opinion is that we actually have far fewer Poor now than we ever had. This opinion stems from not only the available data but also from common sense, i.e. it is impossible to have any poor left in America when dollars and in-kind services totaling approximately $10 trillion has been spent on these programs. Consequently, it is time to declare victory.

It certainly seems as if advocates of eliminating poverty in our time, have never heard of a Gaussian distribution. Using Poverty and Wealth as the paradigm, we would find a Gaussian distribution In any large population, i.e. there are a relatively small number of poor on the left part of the curve, a relatively small number of very wealthy people on the right, and the rest of us distributed somewhere along the scale. Attempt to change this do not work unless we come up with a way to eliminate people, not poverty or wealth. The last person to try this is sitting in a jail awaiting trial in Iraq.

For another view, It is instructive to listen in on an interview between Chris .Wallace of FOX news and the Rev. Joseph Lowery. This is a truly amazing discussion because it demonstrates that the more things change the more they truly do stay the same.

WALLACE: “Let's talk, if we can, about the substance of what you had to say in your remarks. President Johnson declared war on poverty back in the '60s. Since then, there have been a number of Democratic presidents, mostly Democratic Congresses. They don't seem to have gotten much done for blacks.

LOWERY: Well, that's part of our history, and I regret that…. Listen, make sure you understand, Chris, that I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. I'm Methodist. I have grievances with both parties. One takes us for granted. The other one just takes us.

So I don't absolve the Democrats of their lack of commitment to deal with poverty either. But right now we're witnessing the widening of the gap. There's something wrong when a handful of people have more than they'll ever need while millions of people have less than they always need. The gap is widening. There's something wrong.

WALLACE: Reverend, let me ask you to take a look closer to home, to look inside the civil rights movement. Let's take a look at the state of black America today. Here it is, sir.

Sixty-eight percent of black children are born out of wedlock. One in 10 black males between the ages of 20 and 39 are in prison. Black unemployment is almost 11 percent. That's double the national rate, and that's unchanged from 10 years ago.

Sir, who are the leaders in the black community today, and what are their solutions?

LOWERY: Well, there are many leaders in the black community today. There are more leaders in the black community today than any other time, because there was a time when we depended solely on leaders in the civil rights community. Now we have leaders in Congress, 300 and some black mayors. We have blacks leading business communities.

WALLACE: But, sir, I don't hear a solution coming as to how to deal with these problems that have been around for generations.

LOWERY: Well, there have been many proposals, like full employment, eliminate tax cuts for the rich that cut programs for the poor. Let's have more programs. Let's have more initiative on the part of black people themselves.

But what I'm concerned about is public policy. We need a public policy that addresses the needs of the poor, that works toward full employment, that develops more opportunities for training, for job development, job training, for health care. We've got 48 million to 50 million people in this country with no health insurance. That's a weapon of mass destruction.

Now let's examine the reality behind the rhetoric. Rev. Lowery admits that there are more Black leaders today than ever. This sounds like this is a good thing to me. Not to him apparently. Admittedly not all of these successful Black politicians and entrepreneurs owe their success to the success of the War on Poverty. How could that be since Rev Lowery considers that war ongoing, and to this point not terribly successful. If he did think it successful he would not demand that the USA keep pumping more money into a flawed program. He also demands “full employment”. Current unemployment levels in the Country are about 4.6-4.8%. This is considered full employment by most employment professionals.

As usual, Tax cuts for the rich are assailed. Tax cuts to the poor are a difficult thing to accomplish, as the poor do not make enough money to pay taxes. What Lowery is suggesting is essentially a grant program whereby the wealthy, Black, White and Brown, make gifts to the poor. The gifting mechanism is to pay more taxes to the government so that the government can then give it to the poor. I might consider this equitable if the wealthy – see below - were not paying quite a bit already. The latest data available from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for 2003 (released October 2005) may help with this a bit. Frankly Rev Lowery and his ilk should know this already.

The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31% Less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) The wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay are:

· The top 1% pays over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%)

· The top 5% pays 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%).

· The top 10% pays 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%).

· The top 25% pays 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%)

· The top 50% pays 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%).

· The bottom 50% pays 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%)

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%. An important question is, who earns the money that pays these taxes?

· The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%).

· The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%)

· The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%);

· The top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%),

· The top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

How much more do you want Rev. Lowery? Perhaps we need only to address paychecks to you so that you can take what you need, and send the remainder back to us?

The War On Poverty

What is the “War on Poverty” and how did it start. President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) started it and has had help from many during the last 40 years. In the March 3, 1964 address to the Congress of the United States LBJ stated:

“Because it is right, because it is wise, and because, for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty, I submit, for the consideration of the Congress and the country, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.

The Act does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. …”

Johnson wanted to chart a new course that would strike at the causes of poverty that would eventually lead to a better life for Americans..

This Act provided basic opportunities that included giving almost half a million underprivileged young Americans the opportunity to develop skills, continue education, and find useful work. Additionally, the call was to give American communities the opportunity to develop, and carry out, comprehensive plans to fight poverty. Large in the Act was providing dedicated Americans the opportunity to enlist as volunteers in the war against poverty.

Additionally, sections of the Act spoke to poor workers and farmers and their need for programs to help them escape from poverty. Perhaps the most permanent part of the act was the President’s recommendation that a new government agency, The Office of Economic Opportunity, be formed to deliver the benefits of the Economic Opportunity Act

Johnson proposed the creation of a Job Corps, a Work-Training Program, and a Work Study Program. A new national Job Corps would enlistf 100,000 young men to be drawn from those whose background, health and education make them least fit for useful work. In a very general sense, LBJ outlined how these programs would work. A Community Action Program was also part of the act as was a Volunteer Program. Loans and guarantees were to provide incentives to employ the unemployed, and family farms were to be provided assistance to purchase land, organize cooperatives and create new farm ventures.

All of this was to be a coordinated program rather than a series of programs lacking leadership.

Given the bumbling to date in fighting this war, I imagine that LBJ would be terribly unhappy with the efforts to date. Johnson inherited quite a few problems upon his ascension to the Presidency after the death of President Kennedy. Not the least of these was the War in Viet Nam, and its flawed policy of incremental escalation. Johnson started the War on Poverty, and now had a two front war, both of which turned out to have the same strategy – incremental escalation. Few commanders win two front wars, especially when one is to be fought at home, and the other thousands of miles from home. Was the second war a way to take the heat off of him for botched Viet Nam policies? Something to ponder as LBJ was not necessarily considered a paragon of virtue, or one who was considered a charitable fellow. He was, however, a very good politician.

Peter Du Pont and Jeffery Eisenach in a National Review Article (1994) entitled “Poor Substitute: ending welfare as we know it” comment on LBJ's second war as follows:

“Since 1964 the Federal Government has spent $3.5 trillion on eradicating poverty….., the primary result of which has been to create a permanent underclass that did not exist before...We should have learned one thing from this experiment: the Federal Government cannot fight poverty effectively, and it has no business trying. Federal taxes take our money, and federal bureaucracies waste it

........the war on poverty has never been, and even today is not, primarily a federal war. It is an American war, and Americans win victories in that war every day. Alcoholics Anonymous and Salvation Army kitchens, for example, bring real help to needy people. Only on the fronts dominated by the Federal Government are we losing. And the more resources we pour into the federal fronts, the more we lose.

The First key to winning the American war on poverty is to stop the federal war......We then must end federally funded education and training programs; end federal funding for AFDC, Food Stamps, housing, and the Women, Infants, and Children program; and end federally funded Medicaid and other health programs aimed at the poor.....

Second, government public-assistance programs aren't the only efforts made to help one another. In 1991 private charities provided, in cash or in kind, over $176 billion for health, education, and welfare. More than $100 billion of that amount was in cash, provided by the 72 per cent of American households that contributed to charity; the remainder was in the form of volunteered time. In 1991 alone, Americans volunteered over 15 billion hours of their time to charitable activities, the equivalent of nine million full-time employees........

Third, the Federal Government spends money very inefficiently. Research finds that less than half of the average federal welfare dollar actually goes to a needy individual, with the remainder squandered on layer after layer of bureaucracy. “

As is too often the case, the War on Poverty gave birth to a slew of new government agencies and programs. Washington likes nothing better than to create new departments, fund them, and then take credit for the great work they (will) do. Johnson's funding guidelines did just that.

Since then, the Federal government has created vast new bureaucracies and raised taxes to a staggering level not seen since World War Two. (WW II). LBJ helped create welfare (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), Medicare, Head Start, the Job Corps, and Medicaid.

Many of the programs created by LBJ, and his successor Richard Nixon, have done some good. We would like to believe trillions, of dollars deliver some positive benefits. But the poverty program outlined by LBJ in 1964 was hijacked by bureaucrats and activists. Instead of giving a helping hand, welfare trapped several generations in a vicious cycle of handouts coupled to dependency. The Federal government’s programs and policies crowded out many of the private self-help networks and societies that effectively helped the downtrodden in the past.

They did much more than that. They destroyed initiatives, and diminished the hope of generations of people. They did that by failing to understand the basic tenants of human behavior. Resentment breeds on dependence. Make a person dependent upon you and that person will eventually despise you, and what you have done to him or her. A proverb that I head often as a young person was that “it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish.” The first part promotes to self sufficiency, the other makes him dependent.. The first of the “basic opportunities” that LBJ cited was

“It will give almost half a million underprivileged young Americans the opportunity to develop skills, continue education, and find useful work.”

Placing people on the dole does not do this. Placing people on the dole takes opportunity away, and provides incentives to do nothing but lose interest in living a rewarding and fulfilling life. To earn a living is far more enriching than being given a living. Anyone who has worked their way through college, living partially on student teaching and on returned soda bottles, knows this to be true. The pride in that accomplishment lives on far longer than the memory of the hard times. The empowerment of people deprived from earning a living is the antidote to the War on People resulting from the War on Poverty.

Viewed broadly, LBJ’s War on Poverty was, and remains, a failure. Fortunately politicians, surprisingly, reformed welfare in 1996. This revision is arguably the most successful anti-poverty initiative of the past half century. Before 1996, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was the pillar of welfare. In 1996 welfare reform changed the program’s name to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The 1996 reforms eliminated welfare’s “entitlement” status and ending the automatic “right” to benefits. If you are able-bodied and need assistance, you now have to get training or work to receive benefits. Since 1996, welfare is temporary assistance. By emphasizing work and responsibility, the 1996 reforms push all able-bodied Americans towards the independence, self-respect, and self-sufficiency that come from working. The War on Poverty may have begun in 1964, but it wasn’t until 1996 that America began to gain purchase on poverty. In the brief period since 1995, 3.5 million fewer people now live in poverty today than in 1995. (D. Armey, January 9, 2004)

Armey suggests that “winning the war on poverty...” began when the government began to demand some service for monies received”. I could not agree with this more. This success reflects the “teach a man to fish...” proverb cited previously. Another impetus for reform was Hurricane Katrina. Katrina did far more good than one can imagine. It provided a wake up call to everyone who wants to “give more to the poor”. The “poor” in New Orleans were not terribly well defined, other than to be defined as Black. The assumption is made by activists that the poor had to be Black because more Blacks than Whites died in New Orleans (wrong), more Black homes were destroyed (wrong), and the Black community was mistreated by both Federal and State governments – wrong again. The films of the rescues showed all races being saved. The buses going to Texas and Arizona were bringing all effected people to places where they could be helped. The FEMA monies that were ill spent on tattoos, drink, drugs, engagement rings, and pornography rather than on food and shelter was no surprise, and was not necessarily race specific. It was the government's money, so let's spend it. If each recipient were asked to work in a relief effort in exchange for funds to help them, would these monies have been squandered in the same way? I doubt it. Some surely would squander earned monies, but their actions in this regard precede the hurricane.

The Poor

There are two versions of the federal poverty measure: the poverty thresholds (which are the primary version) and the poverty guidelines. The Census Bureau issues the poverty thresholds, which are generally used for statistical purposes. The Department of Health and Human Services issues the poverty guidelines for administrative purposes.

Since the 1960's, the United States Government has defined poverty in absolute terms. The absolute poverty line is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be “lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.”

The above forms the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Since this measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it supposedly made it possible to objectively answer whether any progress was being made in the War on Poverty.. The newly formed Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) adopted the lower of the poverty thresholds for statistical, planning and budgetary purposes in May 1965.

The Bureau of the Budget (now OMB) adopted this definition for statistical use in all Executive departments in 1965. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition of poverty. Apart from tying thresholds to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and changing Farm criteria, the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years.

Current poverty guidelines are a bit different from the original guidelines. The 2005 Health and Human Services guidelines define $12,830 (more in Alaska and Hawaii) as the poverty level for 2 person family units, and $19,350 for four person family units.

Another way of looking at poverty is in relative terms. “Relative poverty" can be defined as “having significantly less access to income and wealth than other members of society”. In 1999, the income of a family at the poverty line was $17,020. This was 28.49 % of the median income in the U.S. In 1959 a family at the poverty line had an income that was 42.64 % of the median income. Thus a poor family in 1999 had relatively less income than a poor family in 1959. Why is this? One is the way poverty is defined.

In 1995, the National Research Council’s Committee on National Statistics found that "the official poverty measure in the United States is flawed, and does not adequately inform policy-makers or the public about who is poor and who is not poor."

The panel discovered that the official U.S. poverty measure "has not kept pace with far-reaching changes in society and the economy." The panel proposed a model based on disposable income:

“According to the panel's recommended measure, income would include, in addition to money received, the value of non cash benefits such as food stamps, school lunches and public housing that can be used to satisfy basic needs. The new measure also would subtract from gross income certain expenses that cannot be used for these basic needs, such as income taxes, child-support payments, medical costs, health-insurance premiums and work-related expenses, including child care.”

Having enough food to feed a family is an important issue in the world. Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7 % in 2001 to 11.1 % in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3 % to 3.5 %. This report, based on data from the December 2002 food security survey, provides statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs.

Frankly, given the precision and accuracy of the above data, the statistical significance of the difference between 10.7 and 11.1% (food security 2001) and 3.3 and 3.5% (food security 2002) is at best questionable. Food security seems basically guaranteed.

The definitions of poverty in the United States do not provide comparisons between poverty here and poverty in other countries. Poverty in Haiti, Brazil, India, parts of Italy, Spain, Russia and China is far different. Cardboard boxes as substitute homes, ditches as toilet facilities, lack of medical care, and no food are everyday occurrences in these poor people's lives. American “poor”, often have a car, televisions, cell phones, computers, and air conditioners, in addition to all the food they need. They also have access to the largess of their fellow citizens…In 1991 private charities provided, in cash or in kind, over $176 billion for health, education, and welfare. More than $100 billion of that amount was in cash, provided by the 72 per cent of American households that contributed to charity; the remainder was in the form of volunteered time. In 1991 alone, Americans volunteered over 15 billion hours of their time to charitable activities, the equivalent of nine million full-time employees.

The War on Education

A casualty of the War on Poverty is Black education. Dr. Thomas Sowell points this out in great detail in “The Education of Minority Children©. “ This article is of great interest, and is indeed pertinent to this discussion. In part he states

“Ironically, black high schools in Washington today have many of the so-called "prerequisites" for good education that never existed in the heyday of Dunbar High School-- and yet the educational results are abysmal. ”Adequate funding" is always included among these "prerequisites" and today the per pupil expenditure in the District of Columbia is among the highest in the nation. During its heyday, Dunbar [school] was starved for funds and its average class size was in the 40s. Its lunchroom was so small that many of its students had to eat out on the streets. Its blackboards were cracked, and it was 1950 before the school had a public address system. Yet, at that point, it had 80 years of achievement behind it, and only 5 more in front of it.

As a failing ghetto school today, Dunbar has a finer physical plant than it ever had when it was an academic success. Politics is also part of this picture. Immediate, tangible symbols are what matter within the limited time horizon of elected politicians. Throwing money at public schools produces such symbolic results, even if it cannot produce quality education.

Most discussions of the poor neglect the educational aspects of poverty. No child need suffer a lack of education. Public schools are just that – public. If they are poor schools where little education takes place, that is not a poverty issue. That is a political one with roods in the Education system and the Unions that run it. Of note is the fact that Black Education is not the only victim of the War on Poverty. All schools that were minimally funded, Black, White, Asian, etc. lose when money replaces standards, and hard work. One does not have to be Black to know poverty or hard times. Nor does one have to have been educated in a ghetto to see ruined facilities that still taught well. Any factory town in the Northeast or Mid-West could tell tales not so dissimilar to that of Dr. Sowell.

Discussion

There is no doubt about it. Some Americans have less money than others. Whose fault is that? I maintain it is not the governments, nor is it institutional bias or racism. It is a disease called entitlementitis. This disease is a slow growing one, and needs generations of individuals to be infected before it becomes part of that group’s behavior. It is passed from parent to child, and is exacerbated by government agencies and liberal activists who feel that exposure to the antidote – work – constitutes a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The relationship between welfare recipient and government worker/civilian activist is a symbiotic one, i.e. one cannot exist without the other. Consequently, if there were no poor, there could be no agency to help the poor. If Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton woke up one morning and there were no poor Blacks, no prejudice in work, no lack of funds to train workers, and a successful anti-poverty program they would panic. By definition, poverty will never be resolved in their eyes. Their political power and lifestyles are defined by poverty. The more poverty, the more important they appear to be.

So they rail against the military in general, the War in Iraq specifically, the possible war in Iran, the tax cuts for the “Rich”, and the lack of funds in the anti-poverty programs in America. I have always been amazed at the naiveté of people who believe that monies not spent elsewhere would automatically be targeted to programs for the poor. They really believe that if we reduced the military budget we would increase the monies in the anti-poverty or other entitlement programs. That is not the case. Most likely the military budget would shrink, and the anti-poverty programs would stay about the same. Similarly if we eliminated the anti-poverty program, the military budget would not grow accordingly.. Competition for funds is such in Washington that any number of programs could be awarded the money.

For fun, let’s look at this in a fairly simple mathematical way. The estimates of expenditures in the War on Poverty range from $3.5 to $9.0 Trillion during the last 40 years. This does not include in kind services or private contributions to the poor. For the sake of discussion, let’s take the average dollars - $6.25 Trillion dollars. Now let’s give each poor person $50,000/annum. This $6.25 Trillion would provide an annual “salary” to approximately 12,500,000,000 people. (Interestingly if we assume that there were as many as 50,000,000 poor in America, this largess would last approximately 167 years.) Were this done, there would be no poor. Additionally, the now salaried “poor” would pay taxes, and thus some money would be returned to the government coffers, and possibly even to the American taxpayers who has funded this debacle for the last 40 years..

If I am anywhere near correct, we could have declared victory over this War years ago with this simple expedient. Let’s do it now. It’s not any worse a solution than those tried to date.

Cartoons

2006-02-07T09:18:00.000-08:00

“GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip: — Rage against caricatures of Islam's revered prophet poured out across the Muslim world Saturday, with aggrieved believers calling for executions, storming European buildings and setting European flags afire.

Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators have stormed the Danish Embassy in Damascus, and they've set fire to the building…..” Fox News February 4, 2006.

It seems patently obvious that no one need belittle another person's religion. Having said that, it is also important to realize that most, if not many, newspaper editors believe that freedom of the press obligates them to print materials that lack sensitivity and are may well be offensive to large groups of people. Muslims do not have a monopoly on being insulted by the press. Many individuals and groups are insulted daily in the press around the world.. For example, one of the latest and, frankly egregious, examples of this was the distasteful and repugnant cartoon which appeared in the Washington Post. This cartoon, using a caricature of a wounded GI to take issue with the Secretary of Defense was an insult to every member of our armed forces. Said cartoon has been defended under the banner of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press is what we are speaking of here. My comments in this piece are not about the appropriateness, or inappropriateness, of the Muslim cartoon, but the over reaction to it by Islamic Fundamentalists.

Muslims are upset because the Prophet Muhammad was caricatured (last September by the way) in a number of European newspapers. So upset in fact that they are rioting throughout Europe, the Middle East and the Orient. It seems strange that a group of fanatics can whip up such strong emotions over such a seemingly trivial incident, an incident resulting from freedom of the press and freedom of expression. But, let’s face it, these cartoons were a perfect opportunity for Islamic fundamentalists to organize demonstrations whereby they tell the West that we are barbarians who have insulted their religious leader, and if all else fails we should die for this insult to Islam. Why is it that Muslims have so little sense of humor, or take them selves so seriously that they fail to see the message of these cartoons in relative context? Cartoons have a message, and that message reaches far beyond the actual drawing. It more often than not says in a picture what is difficult, or even impossible, to say succinctly in words.

One of the reasons that these cartoons have caused so much upset is that the Koran contains a caveat against graven images. I respect that, just as I respect the fact that synagogues have no graven images for not so different reasons. That is a religious tenant of that faith and that is fine. However, the caveat is a Muslim caveat. It does not apply to Christians, Jews, Buddhists or other faiths because it is not a matter of faith for those who are not Muslims. For example the Ten Commandments are rules for Christians. Non-Christians need not pay attention to them.

Muslims are not innocent in the “insulting religion” business. They have impugned Christianity, as well as other religions for centuries. I somehow think that on the list of things to be concerned about, the killing of Jews by Muslim fundamentalist groups in Palestine ranks a bit higher than a cartoon depicting Muhammad. No one dies when a cartoon is drawn. No dignity is taken from the Prophet or God that a cartoon depicts. Actually if the cartoon is in very poor taste, the loss of dignity is charged to the person who draws it, and to those who enjoy it. Usually the message in a cartoon is a powerful one, and those to whom the message is addressed need take notice.

If the Muslim groups protesting this issue were simply upset, and asked that the cartoons be withdrawn, or if they wished to publish letters to the editors of each papers that showed said cartoon, all well and good. However, the Muslims who are so upset have decided to do what they always do – kill somebody. That seems to be the solution to everything in this group. Kill writers if their writing does not comport with Muslim doctrine, kill wives and daughters if sharia laws are not obeyed, kill prisoners who upset you, and in this case kill cartoonist. Why is that the only solution? It reminds me of the saying “When the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every thing as a nail”.

If the Muslims who have emigrated to various countries in Europe and the Americas want to become part of the larger society in the country to which they have emigrated, they need to make a few decisions. France, Denmark or Germany are not Algeria, Saudi Arabia, or Morocco. Immigrants need to understand the customs of the country to which they have moved, and to adjust their behavior accordingly. This does not mean giving up your native language, food customs, or certain dress customs, but it should mean that the language and customs of the country where one moves become the norm at work, public places or school. Moving to a free country from a repressed one, is exhilarating for some, and frightening to others. Freedom is a double edged sword. Freedom of speech means you can express an opinion, no matter how dumb or brilliant it may be, but it also means that others can express their opinions about your opinions in whatever verbal or written fashion they deem appropriate regardless of how insulting you may think that is.

Finally, I wonder if the Prophet Muhammad would be as upset as his followers if he saw the aforementioned cartoons. I imagine that he is wise and dignified, and has seen much in his many, many years. I imagine that he would instruct his followers to “lighten up” relative to this cartoon thing, and if they must, they need to find an Islamic cartoonist who would level the playing field.

In the end are these cartoons worth the troubles caused throughout the world by Islamic groups. The Danes who started all this say it best:

“…Danes Unrepentant Over Muhammad Cartoons

An editor with the Danish newspaper that ran cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad said the resultant furor was "worth it. Joern Mikkelsen, political editor of the conservative paper Jyllands-Posten, said the still-raging debate over who is or isn't entitled to criticize a religion only served to further legitimize the paper's decision to run the cartoons.

The cartoons, first published four months ago in Denmark, included one showing Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a lit fuse. Islamic tradition bars any depiction of the prophet, favorable or otherwise.

The republication of the cartoons in a Norwegian publication on January 10 touched off a storm of protest in the Islamic world. Danish products were boycotted in Arab countries and protesters burned the Danish flag.

Jyllands-Posten's office in Aarhus, Denmark's second-largest city, received bomb threats and its employees were flooded with death threats by phone and mail.

But when the German magazine Der Spiegel asked Mikkelsen if publishing the cartoons was worth the controversy, he replied: "Yes, it was worth it."

Tage Clausen, a spokesman for the paper, said it did not intend to anger Muslims by running the cartoons. "Instead we wanted to show how deeply entrenched self-censorship has already become."

Other Danes who spoke with Der Spiegel in Aarhus supported the publication of the cartoons.

"I can't imagine living in a country where I am no longer allowed to voice my free opinion," said Eminie Ehlers. ….”NewsMax, February 2006

Iran - Nuclear Pariah: Part III

2006-01-30T18:46:00.000-08:00

Iran

- Nuclear Pariah – Part III

Précis

The first two article in this series described some of our concerns about Iran, its nuclear ambitions, and its various other acts of aggression, either contemplated or, carried out by this delinquent country. This article will complete my Iran commentary for the moment. Much else has happened in the world, and this topic has now blossomed into full discussion not only at various Gather points, but also in the mainstream press, as well as the alternative media of radio and the Blogosphere. Unless the West acquiesces totally to Iran and its Russian ally, it seems that diplomatic channels have opened that are addressing this issue. Will it be addressed in an efficient manner with the speed and alacrity that anyone on this Gather so inclined might bring to the issue? I believe not since the last two years have not accomplished anything but excessive hand wringing.. There will be much dithering, pontificating, appeasing, worry and predictions of mass slaughter if we do something dramatic, forgetting the actuality that terror from Iran in the form of nuclear weapons would be worse than anything the West might do to Iran in a pre-emptive manner. Not the least of these possibilities is the fact that Iran is a sponsor of state supported terrorism, funds various terror groups, and in my opinion would have no qualms about providing small nuclear devices to terrorist groups for use against the United States and its allies.

Commentary

Russia offered to enrich its uranium in Russia then shipped to Iran for use as nuclear fuel.

"The capacity of Russia's proposal does not meet all the nuclear energy needs of Iran," Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani Friday, according to state television. Larijani was speaking to reporters on his return to Tehran from a trip to China, where he tried to mobilize support against Western moves to refer Iran's nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

"It is not possible to say the Russian proposal is negative, and that is why we consider it as a basis for negotiations," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Larijani as saying.

This ballet between Russia and Iran, with China in full complicity, is an effort to deflect the reality of the fact that Iran wants nuclear weapons, and has allies that will help in that endeavor. Why would they help? Both Russia and China see the United States as their only real global competitor and gain enormously when we are distracted from our major domestic goals and objectives. If we drain resources neutralizing Iran, we lose opportunities to prosper economically and politically. Additionally, a triumvirate of Russia, China and Iran represents a real threat to peace the Mid-East as well as to world peace. (Does anyone believe for a minute that no weapons grade materials will find its way to Iran from Russia?) A threatened showdown between Iran and the West would draw Europe, the United States, as well as a number of countries into a conflict that could ignite a war that no one will win in the classical sense. Winning is a shadow term. Would we win if we and our allies neutralize Iran? Would Iran win if it eliminated Israel from the map. Would The European Union win if we were engaged in a war that may well involve the use of nuclear weapons? Would China see this as an opportunity to become involved in an exercise that might provide sole access to oil and gas, either from Russia or Iran, or both Would, in fact, anyone win? The answer is fairly obvious --- no one would win. The demise of the United States, China or Russia would result in a global economic disaster. World trade would come to a halt, the stock, bond and real estate markets would cease to exist as we know them, the only country that seems expendable in these scenarios is Iran. Eliminate their nuclear weapons and their leadership that covets the Mid-East as their territory, salvage the oil and gas fields, change the paradigm, and that part of the world would be changed, perhaps forever. With Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt as well as Israel pursuing freedom and peace, the Mid East could become an absolute beacon for the rest of the region. China would still have a source of oil, as would other countries. Russia would have no threatening neighbor to the south, and Israel would breath a lot easier.

To some this may sound like the ravings of a political hawk on steroids. I am not alone.

On January 23, 2006, Newt Gingrich in an interview with Human Events said the U.S.'s top priority should be overthrowing the government of Iran - using peaceful means if possible but through military force if necessary. "I will just say flatly, our objective should be the systematic replacement of this [Iran's] regime,"….

Gingrich support immediate United States support of various Iranian dissident groups, starting with trade unions and student organizations, saying, "We should in every way we can get them resources." Rather than operating surreptitiously, the U.S. should be open about its intentions",

Gingrich invoked the example of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to justify a preemptive strike against Iran, recalling: "In September 1941, when we sank a German submarine while we were technically at peace, [FDR] did a nationwide radio address and said, 'If you are standing next to a rattle snake, you do not have an obligation to wait until it bites you before you decide it's dangerous.'"

Iran's financial and materials support to terrorist groups is as troublesome as its nuclear program, because the two coupled together represent a direct avenue to attack the United States. As recently as January 20, 2006 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met Friday with the leaders of the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Syria, expressing his support a day after 20 people were wounded in Tel Aviv in a suicide attack claimed by Jihad. Can there be doubt that this same Iranian government would be willing to provide nuclear as well as non–nuclear materials to terrorists groups, especially if targets were in the West?

It all comes down to eliminating Iran's nuclear weapons capability. For those who doubt that capability, the Natanz Nuclear Facility in Iran is a sobering site. The attached photos is Natanz

The West has very little time to deal with this issue. We either act now, or act not at all. Once Iran has nuclear capability and has produced large numbers of nuclear weapons, it will be too late. Only last week did Iran warn the Western nations in Europe not to interfere with their program as their weapons were capable of reaching a number of countries with conventional and nuclear warheads.

Finally, I refer the reader to an excellent article in, of all places, the Washington Post. This article summarizes the ideas I have tried to address, and does so in a way that few other than Charles Krauthammer do routinely.

End

January 29, 2006

Iran - Nuclear Pariah - Part II

2006-01-14T15:50:00.000-08:00

Iran – Nuclear Pariah – Part II

Précis:

Why is Iran searching for nuclear weapons technology, as well as weapons, capable of reaching Europe? Why have they built huge nuclear facilities at Natanz? What are the intended uses of the thousands of hidden centrifuges under the earth? Does this mean that Iran wants to use these weapons to dominate the Middle East to control oil and gas, as well as to eliminate Israel from the area?

The European Union (EU) countries and the United States have stipulated that Iran must cease nuclear fuel enrichment and the pursuit of technology to produce same. Simultaneously it must stop hiding its efforts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE). The call has been made to refer Iran to the UN Security Council to possible face sanctions. The President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has threatened the West if they take this action, they will be sorry. What exactly does he mean? Has Iran already acquired weapons of mass destruction?

Comments:

As far as we can tell, the over riding goal of Iran is to dominate the Middle East, to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth, and to control oil and gas in the region. Nuclear weapons are the ticket to attainment of these goals. We believe that unlike more civilized countries, Iran will in fact use their weapons once they have them, and if they do not use them as a first option, they will use them to threaten the world. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, quoting from the English newspaper, The Guardian included, in part, the following:

“One day after Iran publicly confirmed it would resume nuclear research, a newspaper reported Wednesday [January 4, 2006] that Tehran had been seeking components and know-how in Europe for nuclear weapons and missiles.
Iran responded quickly to this front-page report in the Guardian newspaper based on a leaked European intelligence document. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the article was intended to harm Iran's ‘transparent’ efforts to obtain civilian nuclear power. “

According to the article, its reporters were allowed to see a 55-page intelligence document drawing on findings of British, French, German and Belgian security agencies and assessing the Iranian nuclear activities. Dated recently, the document concluded that Iran had been combing Europe for parts for weapons and a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe, and that "import requests and acquisitions [are] registered almost daily. The Guardian stated that the document might have been leaked in response to mounting frustration at Iran's refusal to heed Western calls to give up its program to produce fuel for its Bushehr nuclear power plant.

Candidly, nothing the Iranians say about their intentions vis-à-vis their nuclear program is convincing given their history and their recent outrageous comments, especially about the State of Israel and the Holocaust. Let’s look at a couple of Iranian official’s comments.

Iran’s Comment

Iran claims that their massive and expensive nuclear fuel cycle facilities to ostensibly meet future electricity needs, while preserving oil and gas for export.

Speriamo

This is not credible. Iran’s uranium reserves are miniscule, accounting for less than one percent of its vast oil reserves and even larger gas reserves. Iran’s gas reserves are the second largest in the world, and the industry estimates that Iran flares enough gas annually to generate electricity equivalent to the output of four Bushehr reactors.

Iran’s Comment

"What we resume is merely in the field of research, not more than that," the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Saeedi, told a news conference. "Production of nuclear fuel" — which would involve enrichment — "remains suspended."

Speriamo

The costly infrastructure to perform all of these activities goes well beyond any conceivable peaceful nuclear program. No comparable oil-rich nation has ever engaged, or would be engaged, in this set of activities -- or would pursue them for nearly two decades behind a continuing cloud of secrecy and lies to IAEA inspectors and the international community -- unless it was dead set on building nuclear weapons.

Iran's 18-year history of trying to hide weapons efforts has proven that the international community's worries about Tehran’s nuclear efforts were not unwarranted. This is especially true given Iran's history of concealing and hiding their nuclear activities from the international community and its continued non-compliance of its safeguard obligations. For instance, what is going on at Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz? Why underground facilities with secret entrances, and what is the new construction underway?

As we have followed the saga of Iran's nuclear program, and the concerns articulated by the West one of our biggest concerns was that Europe would fall into the "Appeasement Trap", as it has countless times before. Historically Europe, and to a certain extent the United States has more often than not preferred to talk to bullies rather than confront them. When confrontation does occur, it is usually criticized by those who would rather talk than act. In our opinion this stems from the fact that most people would often deny that real evil exists in their world, rather than admit it, and deal with it with alacrity As an aside, this brings to mind a comment of Churchill’s relative to the faintheartedness of his fellow politicians when faced with threats from Nazi Germany. He characterized his colleague as “…hoping that if he feed the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last”. (Churchill: “The Unruly Giant”, Norman Rose, The Free Press, NY, 1994)

Iran's president denounced Western nations threatening to refer his country to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program, saying the international community has no legal basis for restricting Tehran's right to research. He also said his country has not violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which allows signatories to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. "There is no evidence to prove Iran's diversion (toward nuclear weapons)," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. His comments came a day after Iran threatened to end surprise inspection, as well as other cooperation with the International Atomic energy Agency (IAEA) if it is referred to the Security Council. Furthermore, as he states "The world public opinion knows that Iran has not violated the Nonproliferation Treaty."

Of course he has also recently been quoted as telling the world that Israel must be eliminated. Which of these statements does he believe, or does he believe them all? To what world public opinion is he alluding to in these statements? If the EU as well as the United States are ready to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, what countries constitute this “world public opinion”? Given his comments, perhaps he visits other worlds from time to time…..

Given the above, Iran cannot be allowed to pursue a path to nuclear weapons. The world cannot continue to plead with Iran to stop its nuclear weapons development program. It was not able to reason with Hitler or any other dictatorial sociopath, and the world cannot now reason with the current leaders of Iran. Iran’s leaders are doing the same, i.e. denying any wrongdoing while at the same time they are increasing these same activities. Opening the seals on their uranium enrichment facilities, burying thousands of centrifuges, and threatening the West are not the actions of a country that wants to be part of the international community. To wit: President Hashemi Rafsanjani of Iran stated, “Even if (the Westerners) destroy our scientists, their successors would continue the job. "It would not be easy for them to solve the (nuclear) case by imposing sanctions or anything like that." He also warned the West that it would regret any action to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. What does he mean by that? Would Iran attack Israel? Would Iran he threatening to use them in a not terribly veiled way?

To Be Continued…..

Iran - Nuclear Pariah

2006-01-13T19:20:00.000-08:00

Background:

Iran’s nuclear program is not new. Lest some think that this program, and our reaction to it, is another Bush administration exaggeration, think again. The program began in the Shah’s era, and included a plan to build 20 nuclear power reactors. Construction actually began on two reactors at Bushehr situated on the Persian Gulf. They were never finished. In fact they were bombed by the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war. Additionally, a research and development program to produce fissable materials was initiated. These efforts were halted during the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war.

Work on these reactors was resumed after the 1979 revolution in Iran, but was not given the importance that it has today. The current nuclear program is headed by the President, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the head of the Defense Industries Organization, and the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO). These leaders continue the pursuit of WMD's and support Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear programs against all pressures from the United States and its allies. Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. Prior to 2003 no IAEA inspections had revealed Tehran's violations of the NPT. The meaninglessness of this action is discussed below.

Note: Much more information is available about Iran’s nuclear program at http://www.globalsecurity.org.

What are Iran’s goals in this area? That is not terribly hard to discern. From materials available from IEAE reports, and from groups inside of Iran the following has been pieced together. Much of what is written below is excerpted from remarks made at the Hudson Institute by then Undersecretary of State, John Bolton, and may be accessed at http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/35281.htm.

Iran is pursuing two separate paths to nuclear weapons: The first is enriched uranium and the second is plutonium. These are described briefly below.

Uranium
Iran has tried to develop two different uranium-enrichment methods in order to produce weapons-grade uranium. It has established a number of facilities for the manufacture and testing of centrifuges. These include a pilot enrichment facility designed for 1,000 centrifuges, and a large buried facility intended to house up to 50,000 centrifuges. Enrichment of at least 1.2% was obtained using centrifuges. In parallel, Iran has pursued another program to enrich uranium with lasers. Up to 15% enrichment was attained using laser methods.

Both of these programs were successfully concealed from IAEA inspectors in Iran for years until an Iranian opposition group disclosed their existence.

Plutonium

The alternate avenue to weapons is Plutonium production, and Iran is pursuing two avenues in this regard. The first is the covert construction of a large, heavy water production plant that would supply heavy water for a research reactor has been disclosed by an Iranian opposition group. As noted by Under Secretary Bolton,

“The technical characteristics of this heavy water moderated research reactor are optimal for the production of weapons-grade plutonium. Iran claims the purpose of the reactor is for isotope production for civil purposes, a claim that belies Iran’s confirmed past interest in building hot cells at the heavy water reactor that appear to be designed for plutonium separation.”

The Bushehr light-water power reactor is the second path and may be another source of weapons grade plutonium. That reactor is under IAEA safeguards. Russia has agreed to provide all fresh fuel for that reactor, and Iran and Russia are discussing an agreement to return all spent fuel to Russia. The Russian proposal, backed by the Europeans and the United States, is aimed at pursuading Iran to move the enrichment of uranium completely out of Iran’s territory to ensure that its nuclear program cannot produce weapons. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material needed for a warhead.

A top Russian delegation held talks with Iranian officials about the Russian proposal. A Russian television source quoted the spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Hossein Entezami, as saying. "The two sides are expected to discuss the Russian proposal about joint uranium enrichment (in Russia) and also uranium enrichment in Iran. “

Tehran says its nuclear program is for electricity generation, despite U.S. and European Union concerns that it is moving to produce nuclear bombs. EU foreign and security affairs chief Javier Solana recently told Iran that it may doom further negotiations with the EU about economic aid and other issues if it resumes uranium enrichment.

Iran informed the IAEA Tuesday that it has decided to resume research into nuclear fuel production, a step that has only increased concerns in the West that Iran is moving toward production of nuclear weapons. This concern increreased when Iran removed the seals from its nuclear facilities on January 9th 2006. If Iran should withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty ("NPT") and renounce this agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor would produce enough plutonium each year for about 30 nuclear weapons. This is indeed worrisome given the current leaders of Iran.

The Europeans are hoping the compromise would foster a breakthrough in deadlocked negotiations aimed at ensuring Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons. Talks between Iran and Britain, France and Germany, which resumed last month, have made little progress, but are to continue later this month. As of January 13, 2006, Iran refuses to modify its nuclear program and has threatened that it will not allow inspectors into the country. On this date Iran threatened to block inspections of its nuclear sites if confronted by the U.N. Security Council because of its atomic activities. The hard-line president reaffirmed his country's intention to produce nuclear energy.

To be Continued.....

January 13, 2006

Introduction to the Speriamo Blog

2006-01-04T13:40:00.000-08:00

Speriamo means "We hope" in Italian. Thus we hope to add some interesting comments to various world views. Given that we are Republican and Conservative, our views will reflect this bent. However, we shall not shy from criticizing the Right when it errs or does something that we feel is more idiotic than usual.

We have no affiliations, nor do we receive support from anyone. We are avid readers and much of that reading is in the political arena. When we post, or add to an existing commentary, it may be a subject of general interest or it may be a subject of interest to only a few. In all cases we will try to support our contentions with facts. When we cannot do that, we will identify same as an opinion.

We have asked ourselves the following question: Given the number of Blogs out there, why do we want to do another? Perhaps it's ego, and perhaps it is ego, coupled to a need to engage others in spirited discussion about the issues of the day. We have often ranted about how stupid, or uninformed, the majority of the American people are, and we have looked at the data that shows the media is in fact liberal and biased. All of that was, and is, very unproductive because it does not address the underlying tunnel vision problems. To some, this statement may seem the height of egoism. Perhaps. We think not. One of the reasons for this is that we are older, have seen a great deal, and have witnessed history in the making on a number of fronts. Does that mean we know more than everyone? No. Does that mean we feel we can bring some sanity to some discussions? Yes. In any event that is what the "Speriamo" blog will try to do. You, the readers, will have to decide for yourselves whether or not we ever accomplish this goal.

In general, our commentary will reflect opinions about articles and books published by Liberal authors, Democratic legislators, and public pundits. Similarly, it will address the inability of the press and others of like mind to deal in other than conclusions. By that I mean that many on the Left who comment about just about anything do so by citing a conclusion. They do not seem capable of citing any facts to support those conclusions. To wit, I refer you to comments by Dr. Dean, the wayward physician, who is head of the Democratic party. (What happened to his "Do no Harm" oath when he received his medical degree?)

Dr. Dean's statement (Partial and excerpted from Power Line-see below)

"We now know that George Bush personally ordered American intelligence services to spy on American citizens without the consent of any court and repeatedly directed officials to take actions that explicitly violated the law."

This is a conclusion with no supporting data. John Hinderaker of Power Line responded as follows:

Really? How do we know that? What actions violated the law? What law? Dean, of course, never makes a legal argument, but assumes that his audience has been properly warmed up by the New York Times, and won't question his assertions. He (Dean) continues:

"Our courts are the last line of defense against abuses of power like this, and every judicial nominee must demonstrate that they will honor their most important responsibility: protecting our rights and freedoms.
Samuel Alito will not.

During the course of his judicial career, Samuel Alito has compiled a record of looking the other way when abuses of power threaten our basic freedoms. He has deferred to unscrupulous prosecutors who constructed all-white juries to try black defendants. He repeatedly failed to protect our right to privacy. He was even the lone judge [It was a 2-1 decision] voting to uphold the illegal strip-search of a 10-year old girl."

The problem here is that Dean is talking about Doe v. Groody, and has not the faintest idea of what Judge Alito said or meant in that opinion. Nor does he present, and seemingly does not understand, the opinions of the other judges in the case. For a more detailed discussion of this matter see Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/) for January 3, 2006.

Do we expect to convert Liberals into Conservatives - No. We do expect however that some Liberals will at least begin to question what is presented as fact, and perhaps see it for what it is - opinion, and a biased one at that.

ggda
1/4/2006