Thursday, December 20, 2012

Gun control

After this most recent mass shooting, the call for gun control is going to become very loud. Even my wife told me yesterday that she favored making ownership of ALL firearms illegal. I understand the concept behind the limiting access of firearms.
IF (A very big if) nobody could obtain firearms and/or ammunition, you would think that mass shootings like this would never happen. I not only disagree, but I believe that taking firearms away from law abiding citizens will only make the situation worse, not better.
Mass murder can be achieved in many ways besides going on a shooting rampage. Just look at Oklahoma City. And he got away from the scene without killing himself.
What about “Saturday night specials”? I am certain that we have plenty of people in this country would can forge their own firearms with materials commonly available. The firearms would simply move underground, in a way similar to the way prohibition moved drinking alcohol underground. What you end up doing is taking away the ability of people like me from ever having the training and practice needed to defend myself and or my family.
My wife does not see what I see in this regard. You need to look to see how many would be assaults with firearms are defeated every week. Conceal and carry works far better. Just look at the statistics in the states that are enacting this measure. Violent crime is down, although many critics say that crime is down across the country anyway. But the key is foiled attempts at the use of firearms. We see two or three a week, but they are not on the nightly news because generally only one or two people are killed and sometimes no one. Not big enough to make the papers, yet effective. How many shootings like we saw last week in the school? They tend to come in groups, yet average out to less than one a year. We have dozens of foiled attempts every year in concealed and carry states. This is because we have honest, law abiding citizens who are present at the scene who are willing to risk their life in order to at the very least, to force the shooter to direct their attention to them. Even if they fail, they at least direct the attention of the shooter away from the targets that they would select. This buys time for the others to run away. Many times they are successful and stop the violence immediately.
Have you noticed how these successful shooters are ALWAYS in a situation where no one else has firearms to shoot back? In the situations where someone else does have the ability to shoot back, they do and generally it is successful. Yet we do not hear about them because the death toll is so low, if anyone did die. Then we have the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution enabled our people to defend themselves with the right to bear and CARRY arms. And the reference is to firearms. This was set up this way to enable us with the ability to defend ourselves from not just tyranny, but from ANY threat where we are outnumbered or outsized. I do not know about the other states that have allowed conceal and carry, but I do know that in Wisconsin, 80% of the new applications for concealed permits have been submitted by women. I expect similar results in the other states that have allowed this practice. A woman attacked by a man can really stand her ground if she did not have to use her fists to protect herself. A firearm goes a long way to even the odds and examples of justified shootings in conceal and carry states are plentiful.
The idea of taking firearms away from law abiding citizens is at best misguided. Other factors could be at play here and they are far worse, which is why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place.  

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Health Care

I recently saw a comment that claims that most people in other countries believe the health care system in the United States is a joke. Frankly, I really don’t care what they think. What I KNOW is that the United States has led the world in medical breakthroughs and innovation for the past century. The very fact that people are living longer today than ever before is in large part because of the United States. The sad part about all of this is that our President seems to think that this was all a big mistake and that we should CHANGE this. The cost just is not worth it for me, but then again, our President does not seem all that concerned about cost. 

Thursday, December 6, 2012


Egypt just may be undergoing a similar process that Iran underwent back in 2010. Iran had protests after an election that was seen as being rigged. The end result was those who were brave enough to stand up and expose themselves were then identified. Over the course of the next few weeks, these people were dealt with. There are lots of ways of dealing with people without resorting to actual elimination, although I am certain that torture and murder were used frequently. However, Iran is different from Egypt.
Egypt was controlled by England for generations. Although the Islamic influence is still ever present, the ideas of a different economic and legal system were established long enough to make some roots. We are seeing this today with the large protests against the government that had been recently elected. The current leadership of Egypt is largely influenced by Islamic ideology and law. The moves being protested against are logical but enough of the population has accepted a different way of rule that we are seeing larger protest than what was witnessed in Iran. What I worry about is a similar reaction by the government. Although Egypt appears to have a larger population that is in conflict with the government, the response will most likely be similar. Identification of those who are the most visible and most exposed. I would expect the initial moves by the Egyptian government to be fairly quiet. Once people begin to shut up, (Threatening families is a good way to do this) it is easier to be open with the moves that follow. People disappearing tends to get others thinking about their own best interests. Islam is good at forcing submission and the influence has not been eliminated altogether, by any stretch.
It remains to be seen what will result in Egypt, but the pattern that I see throughout the Middle East today is victory by Islamic forces and influence. I expect the same in Egypt although it may take longer than in some of the other countries.      

Wednesday, November 28, 2012


The United States is not going to go bankrupt. At least, not in the way those private companies do when they sell off all of the assets and liquidate operating altogether. Many forms of bankruptcy exist where the company sells off some assets and consolidates the business into a smaller operation. No, the United States can just print more money to pay its bills. This just leads to a lower value of the currency, as we have been seeing for many decades now.
This form of bankruptcy is what some of the countries in Europe are beginning to experience. They have found that they can’t borrow enough money to continue to spend at current levels, so they have to consider reductions in expenses. Besides, the other countries in the Euro simply can’t go giving them money forever. Sooner or later, the United States will reach this position and we will face the same choices. We had that chance in the last election and we chose not to do anything about it.
The United States is the largest economy in the world. We had a great deal of wealth stored up from the 19th and first part of the 20th century. We have gone through much of this wealth, but we still have many advantages that continue to prop us up. What is the concern is that we are moving at an increasing rate. The ‘crisis’ that keep on popping up at an accelerating rate are a signal that danger lies ahead. Sooner or later, you can’t just print more money. Countries and people will begin to refuse to take it. This is when an ‘adjustment’ is mandatory. We got a glimpse of this back in the late 1970’s when inflation was a real problem. The next time around will be worse. How can it be better when your overall financial position is weaker and you have increased your spending habit?    

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Peace in the Middle East is impossible

Only two outcomes will result and one will not bring peace to the region.
After 55 years of constant warfare, it must be obvious that permanent peace is just not possible unless some drastic CHANGE occurs. The end result must be Israel is overrun and the land enters the ‘house of peace’, or else Islamic governance and nationalism dies.
Having Israel enter the ‘house of peace’ would result in genocide like the world has not seen since World War II. For a good example of what would happen after the fall of Israel, just look at how those 6 ‘informants’ were treated last week. These were 6 people who were accused of just working with the Israelis. They were not even Israelis and they were killed. I would expect even worse for those who are Israeli.
After the fall of Israel and the genocide that would follow, the land would become much more peaceful, as most inhabitants would then be dead. The new inhabitants would be exhausted by their efforts but would recover. This would not bring peace because eventually the entity that results would not remain content to live with the ‘house of war’. Warfare would be exported from that area just as surely as it was exported from Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban and is today from Iran.
The other outcome has to be the end of Islamic governance and nationalism. A religion cannot be fielding an army any more. Imams cannot be forming and leading their own combat units. Religious law cannot be enforced that executes people for ‘insulting’ the religious leaders, nor for the host of other excuses does that Islamic law dictate. Islamic law is the most totalitarian legal system that I have ever studied. It is a 5th century system of governance that has no place in the modern world. Islamic governance is at war against every national government in the world, even those that are host to the culture that it has spawned over the past 1000 years. This is the actual cause of the constant warfare and violence that takes place constantly in all places of the world where Islam is in contact with other cultures and systems of government. I do not know of a way to have Islam evolve into a modern concept of religion other than to remove about 90% of its legal system and rules. This will not take place without open warfare any more than getting rid of slavery in the southern United States did in 1860. The effects of such change within Islam would also take hundreds of years. Before this, (as with getting rid of slavery) it would take a massively destructive war to effect such drastic change. People will fight openly to prevent that type of change in way of life. With the population of the supporters numbering in the hundreds of millions, such war could only be on the level that would exceed World War II by many multiples. In other worlds, it will require World War III. Nuclear weapons are the most likely instrument. And like the South in 1860, most likely the first blow will be stuck by Islamic nationalists in a location where the national entity is being challenged in the most obvious way(s). This confrontation cannot be delayed forever. Sooner or later, some decisive events must occur to put an end to it. Until then, the ‘cease fires’ that are so common between Israel and the surrounding areas will be constantly interrupted by warfare and violence that will continue to flare up.            

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Israel is at fault again

I have been hearing two of the same old stupid arguments again concerning the attacks upon Israel. The missiles being launched at Israel are relatively ineffective. Yet the Israeli response has been violent and far out of proportion. Yes the missiles are not very effective. Many are shot down and many fall in places where no harm is done. Yet these facts are not in any way connected to which side started the shooting or who is at ‘fault’. (Shooting first is justified in some cases, but is generally a sign of the aggressor.) I am guessing that the logic is that if you are good at something, then you like to do it more often than those who are not. Israel is much better at waging war than their attackers, so they are warmongers. This is fifth grade logic being applied to a graduate level discussion. Artillery bombardments have many misses. Even with today’s precision instruments, literally tons of shells can land in spaces that do no damage to the target. The intent is usually very clear. Just because you can build fortifications than can minimize the damage does not make you the attacker. The ability to shoot down missiles that are bombarding you makes you more effective in defense, not the attacker. Then we have the issue of proportion. War is NOT proportional. They are won by the side that escalates to a level the other side either cannot or will not match. It has nothing to do with who started it or who is ‘right’. Actually, the Israeli response HAS been restrained. The IDF has far more capability to wage war than what they are using today. No ground assault has been launched. (YET) Most of the IDF is sitting idle in prepared positions. No nuclear weapons have been used. Nuclear weapons are a last resort, and it has been demonstrated time and again that Israel is not going to use them in situations like this. The government of Turkey made a statement yesterday (11/20/12) that pointed out that Israel was deliberately attempting to kill civilians and is targeting them. Turkey’s capabilities must be miniscule, because if Israel was attempting to do this, we would be seeing tens of thousands of dead, every day. An Israeli division has enough firepower to kill hundreds of people in well under an hour. Multiply this with airpower and simple math will tell you that Israel is being so restrained that barely any resources are actually in use. My favorite of the most stupid arguments: The Arabs are taking far more losses than Israel. As if the losses one side takes in a conflict have anything to do with who started it or who is to blame for the conflict in the first place. The best example I can think of is that Japan attacked the United States in 1941. When it was over, we had lost something like 40,000 dead and a couple hundred thousand wounded. We killed millions of Japanese, many of them civilians. The two nuclear attacks killed far more Japanese than we lost in the entire war, and they were ALL civilians. And this makes us the ones who started it? We are the ones who are to blame for the conflict? Are you mad? No, it makes you prejudiced and/or uninformed. The presses (News reporters) have about a 5th or 6th grade level of understanding of warfare. Analysis is almost entirely worthless, if not misleading. I have seen this in reports from ALL the wars that I have studied since the inception of the printing press. We are seeing it again today.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

President Obama is losing the war

To recap: The U.S. supported the ‘uprisings’ in Libya and Egypt. The result is two new governments that did not protect our embassies and allowed both to be overrun by our enemies. Our ambassador was raped and murdered and the enemy flag was raised over both embassies. Syria is experiencing another ‘uprising’ and like Libya and Egypt, we (The U.S.) are supporting the ‘insurgents’. Now Hamas has launched attacks into Israel. Israel is calling up reserves in advance of a potential ‘invasion’ of Gaza. While this type of situation has been seen many times before, the increased boldness of attacks by enemies of established governments in the Middle East cannot be denied. This is what losing a war looks like. A good comparison is the American response and the results after the two different attacks on 9/11. After 9/11/01, the U.S. inserted ground units into Afghanistan and began ‘painting’ targets of the Taliban positions which resulted in the toppling of the government two months later. (November 2001) An ‘insurgent’ war began almost immediately. Within the next year and a half, the U.S. invaded Iraq and escalated the war to two countries where our enemies deployed much of their strength and resources in a failing attempt to meet our military in open battle. 9/11/12 was preceded by the U.S. assisting in the toppling of the governments of Libya and Egypt, the very same countries that failed to protect our embassies and allowed our enemy to raise their flag after successfully overrunning them. The ‘insurgency’ in Syria had already begun prior to the attacks on 9/11/12. Two months later, (November) Hamas is escalating the war against Israel who has now begun to call up reserves. Egypt has recalled its ambassador to Israel and is threatening to open the border to Gaza. This would allow for easier supply to Hamas and its allies in the faceoff with Israel. The increasing effectiveness and frequency of attacks upon the U.S. and our allies is unmistakable. After 9/11/01, the U.S. escalated the war to our advantage. Today, the war is being escalated by our enemies to their advantage. We are urging restraint on all sides. This is not being proactive nor is it being decisive. The U.S. is on the strategic, operational and tactical defensive. In other words, we are losing. Maybe President Obama will uncover some unknown strategy or make a move that will be more in our favor, but this remains to be seen. In the meantime, we can expect a further escalation of the war against our interests and people. This is not nearly as desirable as having our enemies attacking our military.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Lessons from Sandy

Once again, you hear about price gouging. My answer is: So what? I cannot think of a better way to conserve scarce resources, and neither has anyone else since the dawn of time. The argument is that it is greedy to raise prices in times like that. As if the person who is making the argument is not greedy. It is always someone else, not me. (I have an idea. Why don’t these people send all their money to me and I can determine how much they need to run their affairs. Any excess I will naturally keep for myself.) The best description that I can think of was articulated by Milton Friedman in a discussion with Phil Donahue on this very subject. It is human nature. The point I wish to make here is that by allowing prices to rise during times of shortages, a natural force of human nature is unleashed that will conserve those very resources that are in demand. If prices did not rise, then those who have the resources have little to no incentive to conserve. Nobody wants to change their behavior. Generally, people will only do so unless they see a viable alternative or are forced to do so. If prices are not allowed to rise with shortages of supply, the stock of resource(s) will be exhausted much more quickly thereby adding to the shortage. This is the primary reason why the old Soviet Union experienced so many shortages. And even then, the quality of what they were able to obtain was poor. I have relatives who live in New Jersey who had a flood a few years ago because the power had failed. They had purchased a backup generator and then thought that they were protected. The problem this time was that gasoline was in short supply. They had to run the generator sparingly in order to conserve the little gas that they could obtain. Do you believe that they would have limited their use of this generator if they had been able to obtain more fuel? Why should they be cold at night because everyone else could not obtain fuel? And they should sell some of what they had at the price that they paid for it because others were unable to obtain any? Why should they do so? What if you had been farsighted enough to stock enough for your needs? You should give this up for the common good? I know that you will not be able to find many people who would. In other words, EVERYONE is subject to these forces. Calling it greed only distorts the picture to make it look like you are better than everyone else. I suppose those who argue for going after those ‘greedy’ people are of the type that would give up everything to help those who are in need. Funny, I have not been hearing or seeing any of them. Accusations can tell you a lot about the accuser. This one is little different.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Broken systems

Political: I see the political situation in the United States as being like a pendulum. The public swings back and forth. After the excess of President Carter, the swing back to Ronald Reagan was dramatic and decisive. It produced results that were obvious to all. Today, the swing did not happen. The pendulum swung even further left as conservatives lost seats in both house and Senate. The defeat was systematic and ideological. This in and of itself is not a decisive event, but coupled with the two other broken systems and we are headed for some type of massive correction. Economic: Spending is out of control. This applies to Europe as well as the United States. The argument as to how to pay for it does not matter. The problem is like a family who is spending more than they make and are borrowing the amount over what they take in. Sooner or later the debt cannot be serviced. Europe is reaching this point only a little sooner than we are. Just look at the constant currency ‘crisis’ that keep popping up. This January 1st, it is the ‘fiscal cliff’. Right about the same time, the Congress will need to raise the debt limit. This stuff used to come up only every 5 or 10 years or so. Now that we are so much in debt, we are seeing the balancing act becoming necessary every few months or so. The problem is not taxes, although raising taxes takes capital away from the free market and limits its ability to sustain itself and/or grow. The problem is excessive spending and the election of 2012 has demonstrated that the population of the United States is not interested in addressing the root causes. The war: Find it convenient that the general who was to testify about Benghazi resigned just a few days prior to his taking the stand? I do, but this is only a symptom of the problem. We are losing the war and our government is attempting to hide this fact from us. The raising of the enemy flag over our embassies in Egypt and Libya is not just symbolic. It is a statement of progress. Two governments that we helped to topple have turned even more strongly against us. Islamic law (The legal system of the enemy that is at war against us) is favored in both countries and looks like will become more enforced in the very same lands. The majorities of the populations of the countries in the Middle East favor what happened in Benghazi. Even if this statement is incorrect in that it is only a minority, we are still looking at substantial numbers of enemy supporters. This enemy is capable of producing suicide attackers for only the 2nd time of all of recorded history. And this population outnumbers that of the 1st time (Japan) by many multiples. In other words, the war is much larger than what is going on and we are losing. It can only be a matter of time before it goes nuclear. And that time is approaching more quickly now as our enemy is gaining strength. Conclusion: It cannot be all that much longer before something breaks. Economics can start wars quickly. All we need is the match. It may still be a few years off, but it is close. Much closer now than ever before.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

The Regan Democrats are gone

Over the past year, I have seen and heard many comparisons between last Tuesday’s election and the election of 1980. President Obama was seen as being far worse than President Carter so the expectation that he would meet the same fate was overwhelming. It did not happen in at least part because the people who made up the Regan Democrats and swung to the right for that election are no longer numerous enough to make the difference. The CHANGE that President Obama spoke of has been implemented and is permanent. A good example: Obamacare. A good friend of mine told me last weekend that he had voted for Regan. Being a Democrat, this made him a Regan Democrat. He was going to vote for President Obama because Obamacare would make the heath care system free. He is thinking of people who were sick and were in debt that they could never repay. He is far from being alone with his thinking. My wife suffers from this type of thinking and she NEVER voted for Regan. What they do not understand is that we will never be able to go back. The CHANGE here is just as permanent as his swing to the left. Just think: Free. Free is a simple concept. Easy to understand and like. Do you believe that once you obtain something for nothing that you will EVER accept having to pay for it? If you really need it and want good quality, you will have to pay a VERY high price. This is what you need to do if you live in England or Canada. (Canada is much closer to the U.S. so it is much less expensive to travel here for quality.) It will take years, decades for us to reach this point. But make no mistake: This CHANGE is permanent, no matter how much we attempt to slow it down. The Regan Democrats are not going to be able to bring us back. They are gone and gone for good.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Bush lied and people died?

I am guessing that by people dying, the slogan is referring to our soldiers who died in Iraq. (As if our enemies did not take any serious loss) The entire war was about how President Bush lied to make war on Iraq. Well, I can’t think of better reasons to lie. Iraq (Saddam) was paying money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. This was enough for me. I did not care if they had WMD or not, but it did make for a good excuse. Engaging our enemies in the desert was a masterful move against the enemies who attacked us on 9/11/01. The desert in Iraq is the most ideal ground for the mechanized units that we field in order to engage our enemies. The best part was that they came to us from all over the Islamic world. We then kicked their ass in Iraq and they know it. We lost a lot of good soldiers but we killed far more of them than they did us. Not exactly like 9/11/01 when only 19 of them killed close to 3000 of us. If President Bush lied in order to wage effective war against our enemies, then so be it. War is deception. In 1941, Karl Donitz said in a speech to the German people to expect heavier losses. Winston Churchill ordered the navy to beef up escorts on the North Atlantic convoy routes because the Germans were about to deploy additional submarines there. He was correct. The Germans lost more subs because their leader made a mistake and said too much. If Bush lied to deceive during wartime in order to wage effective war against our enemies, then so be it. I do not believe that he lied. Most of the information pointed to WMD. Just look at all the countries that were fooled. They sent troops as well. Even Saddam himself thought that he had them. Even if President Bush did lie, he waged effective war against them. Today, we are not winning the war and our government knows it. The black flag of our enemies were flown over our embassies in Libya and Egypt. And yet nothing has been done in almost 2 months. Our President is still ‘investigating’. I guess he has not figured it out yet. (Mr. President, we have these things called aircraft carriers that planes land on. You are only partially correct: This is all about the capability that numbers provide. You are not using our capabilities.) How can President Bush lying about Iraq and WMD compare to the lying about Benghazi? Only 3 or so days before the attacks on Benghazi , President Obama had claimed that he killed Osama (Which the U.S. did.) And we had Al Qaeda on the run. In other words, we were winning the war. The Benghazi thing (And Egypt) could only have been politically inconvenient. He was lying to protect his own butt, not our country. And he is not waging war against our enemies who conquered our embassies. This election means more to him than our winning the war. I always felt that I knew his motivations and loyalties. This does not surprise me.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012


Cheating this presidential election (2012) I expect this Presidential election; we can be looking at cheating like we have never seen before. I don’t know what the Republican Party can do, but I would hope that we can monitor better and more strictly. President Obama deliberately misled the American public with the video to direct attention away from the real enemy who murdered our Ambassador and committed the act of war that it represents. We are not talking about cheating on your wife. Republicans need both houses; we must repeal Obama care. The damage of not repealing even if left unfunded will be irreversible. Sooner or later, funding will expand, unless repealed. This is why I believe that we are going to see massive cheating. If successful, even if President Obama loses, the victory may not be enough to change the direction we are heading in, certainly not enough to turn it around. And this is all that they need. This is a major incentive for cheating. If we can be lied to about the murder of our Ambassador and an act of war, it is not unreasonable to believe that we can be lied to about who (Or how many) voted for who.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

We have fewer horses today

This is a classic case of seeing what you want to see. Obama: “You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” “It’s not a game of battleship where we’re counting ships, it’s ‘What are our capabilities?’” Actually, it is counting ships. Attrition determines who wins the big wars. Capabilities depend upon numbers to a large degree. Aircraft carriers need escorts. Aircraft carriers need to be rotated for service for prolonged periods of time. This requires additional numbers in order to maintain consistent capability. And this is without losses due to accidents and/or enemy action. I have seen and heard many people who believe that President Obama did well in this exchange. This shows me how limited President Obama’s thinking is concerning our military and its capabilities. In 1981, the US Navy had stated the idea that it was going to bring back the battleship. (Iowa class) I saw an “expert” declare that the battleship in 1981 is as obsolete as the horse was during World War II. President Obama’s comment above reminds me of this ‘expert’. What this ‘Expert’ did not know was that even at the end of the war, the German army was more than 60% horse driven. The German army was the toughest fighting force on earth. Have you seen pictures of the German army after a big defeat? Dead horses are everywhere. The supply units were almost all horse driven (Exception: the panzer supply units) How did the German 6th army hold out in Stalingrad for 2 and a half months in the middle of winter with the majority of the supply on the wrong side of the Don river? The men ate the horses. Horses may have been obsolete, but they were still VERY useful. The U.S. and England were the ONLY 100% mechanized armies in the entire world. President Obama does not understand this. The Soviet army inflicted far more losses on the German army than anyone else during World War II and they used horses extensively. President Obama’s comment may have worked on those who know little about horses, bayonets, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, but he does not know much at all about their capabilities or their practical use. God help us if a big war breaks out with this guy as our Commander-in-Chief.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

We are getting close

I am not referring to the election. We are getting close to the war blowing up. Iran is close to getting nuclear weapons. Iran does not need to deploy any that they obtain. Just the fact that they have them will allow Iran to escalate its war against us. Iran is already a major challenge to invade. Iran is a far different situation from invading Iraq. For many reasons, it is a much tougher nut to crack. Iran’s position is already fairly strong and look at the support it is giving to Islamic nationalist groups. When Iran gets the bomb, and any type of delivery system, just think about how much more they will be able to expand their operations. Iran will not need to use any nukes, just having them will escalate the war. And this leaves out the possibility that Iran WILL use them. Either way, the war is closer to blowing up. Now toss in our election. If President Obama wins re-election, it is possible that Israel will not be able to wait 4 or 5 more years for a different President. It would not surprise me if President Obama abandoned Israel like Neville Chamberlain did for Czechoslovakia back in 1938. If Israel suspects as I do, they will not be able to wait and would be pressed to begin the war on their own. I doubt they have the strength without the use of nuclear weapons themselves, and I also doubt that they would begin the war by using those they do have. I believe this unlikely, but more possible than if President Obama loses. After all, Israel could then wait for someone who is more likely to help them take office. I am leaving out a great deal, but overall; the world is much closer to a major regional war than we were just a few years ago. And I believe that we are pretty close right now. Within a couple of years is very possible. That is to close for me.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The debate

The Presidential debate last night was a classic case of seeing what you want to see. When the person I favor as President spoke, I liked what I heard. When the “Other guy” spoke, I did not. This is usually true in any case, but was different from the 1st debate because it had seemed that Governor Romney had appeared far more decisive than President Obama. This was not true this time around. Frankly, I expected a much more spirited debate this time around because President Obama had seemed so quiet and weak last time. As in the Vice Presidential debate, I expected more attacks from the President and I was not disappointed. He was on the defensive and needed to show more of a fighting spirit. He showed it last night. I will call the debate last night a draw in that I saw basically what I expected to see. What surprised me (And I really should not have been surprised over this)was in how much these two guys loath each other. I thought that they hid their dislike of each other fairly well, but it showed up to me in the number of times that each called the others statement(s) untrue. This was a constant theme for both President Obama and Governor Romney. So it all boils down to who and what you believe. This goes back to seeing what you want to see. The choice between the two cannot be much clearer. These two are about as opposite on the political scale as we can find today. One side wants to use the fundamental economics that this country was founded upon and the other believes that more government running of the economy is the answer. This election will demonstrate just how much our country has CHANGED.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

We did not start the war

I heard on the radio last night a woman who claimed she was an independent voter. She had voted for President Obama the last time but liked Romney EXCEPT she thought that he was willing to ‘start another war’ more easily than President Obama. She has a son 14 years old and is understandably worried. The major problem here is that she fundamentally misunderstands the situation. Let’s start by saying that my two sons are 14 and 13. Think I want them to have to go into battle and risk life and limb? The problem goes far beyond her and my families. Our public news agencies are not doing their jobs properly. I have read news reports from wars dating back to the American Revolution. The analysis is sometimes OK, but generally poor. In other words, the ‘press’ has never really understood the basics of warfare. Political analysis is first rate, but analysis of armed conflict is at about a 5th grade level. The United States did NOT start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. OH, we ‘invaded’ those countries all right. We ‘invaded’ France in 1944. Many people believe the ‘invasions’ to be very different and they are. But the invasions are not different in the context of ‘starting the war’. Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched from. Iraq had no direct involvement in 9/11 but is connected in that the war is far larger than both Iraq AND Afghanistan. When the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, we became ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land. This is an ‘invasion’ of Islamic sovereignty. Go back further. In 1990, the United States was invited to send troops into Saudi Arabia to repel Iraqi troops from Kuwait. As soon as the first U.S. soldier set foot on Saudi soil, we became ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land. This was one of the reasons why Osama Bin Laden ‘declared war’ on the United States. A religion that fields combat units and declares war is the cause of the war. Islamic sovereignty does not recognize the modern national government. The United States is not starting the war anymore than we did back in 1804 when Muslims demanded ‘Tribute’ for our ships passing through ‘Muslim waters’. Tribute is payment of a ‘poll tax’ by non-Muslims living in Islamic land. The payer is exempted from military service. Taxation and conscription are two functions of the modern national government. The Barbary pirates were stretching Islamic law to extend Islamic sovereignty but this is not new either. I saw a video of a young girl being stoned to death. The final act was a cinder block dropped on her head. This is a violation of Islamic law. The rocks are not to be as small as to qualify as a pebble, yet can’t be so large as to kill with one blow. The United States did not start any of this B.S. either. If my sons have to risk their lives to end this crap, then I will be very proud of them and our country. The world cannot have religion acting like a national government anymore. I had thought that this ended with the last crusade, but this is not the case concerning Islamic sovereignty.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

My country lied to me

It took me awhile to realize what happened. I assumed that when my government said that an attack upon the sovereignty of my country and our ambassador was killed, that I would at least get an honest appraisal of the situation. I expect honesty in view of the situation within human limits and error. I found out that the U.S. government, namely President Obama, knew from the beginning that this was an organized, timed terrorist attack. I went downstairs and drank too much. It was an immature response, but I still have difficulty believing it. I suppose it bothered me even more that I was suspicious about President Obama doing stuff like this, but I sure as hell HOPED it would never happen. I expect a certain amount of ‘fluff’ with all politicians. They have to express themselves in the least offensive way to attract the most voters. I also expect them to exaggerate. If someone is really passionate about something, it is a human fault. If you really believe in something, it is easier to ‘stretch the truth’. We see this in politicians all the time. And I expect them to really believe what they are saying. This is why I did not expect much new transparency from the Obama administration, despite what he was saying. When it comes to matters of national security and war, I have higher expectations. I have felt since I was a kid that killing people (Or not) was the most important function of our national government. No fooling around on these issues. I do not believe in much room for ‘stretching the truth’. Accurate information is hard enough to come by in these situations. When impeachment hearings were being held against President Clinton, I did not feel that he should have been removed from office. Doing so would have damaged the office of the President far more than just putting up with him another two or more years. However, it is one thing to lie about getting blowjobs or cheating on your wife. It is a far different matter when lying about a major national security event or acts of war. President Obama did it for his own political benefit. It would have looked really bad if terrorists had attacked us less than 2 months before the Presidential election. This looks particularly bad because it took place on the anniversary of 9/11. This is placing your own self interest before country. Maybe individuals can get away with it, but ANY elected official should at the least lose his job. If we re-elect President Obama, we are allowing him to get away with it. This damages the office of the President far more than if he were removed from office. If this attack has proved anything, it is that Islamic nationalists are still at war against us. The number one rule in warfare is to “know thy enemy”. The attack and our reaction also demonstrate that President Obama is voting ‘present’ in the war that our enemy is waging against us. This is one of the reasons why our enemies are gaining strength and effectiveness. This is one of the reasons why we are losing this war. And our President is lying about it to us. No wonder I got drunk. I am over the shock now. Now I am not just angry. We need to get rid of leaders who lie to us about those who want to kill us and wage EFFECTIVE war against them. No BULLSHIT. Killing people is no time for B.S. nor is it a time for lying, no matter what the personal consequences. Our President after almost 4 years does not understand this. He should have before he took office. No way in hell should he remain.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

The Middle East is becoming more unstable

Turkey has responded to a single mortar round with 2 days of artillery bombardments. The Turks are posturing for more direct involvement in the war that is being fought in Syria. Hezbollah is becoming more directly involved. (This is to be expected) Libya is moving more slowly toward an Islamic government than many of the other countries in the ‘Arab Spring’. Libya is appointing a number of Muslim Brotherhood ‘representatives’ to important political positions and numerous representatives of competing groups are being left out. This sounds familiar. Iran is suffering from hyperinflation and is seeing unrest today as a direct result. Hyperinflation is a desperate situation to be caught in. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. This is certainly not stability. I do want to point out that I am not crying about the government of Iran being placed into a difficult position. Now that the involvement of the U.S. in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are drawing to a close, our enemies have far more resources to pit against their enemies throughout the region. And they are winning. One great weakness our enemies have is that they are so badly divided. This certainly seems to be changing although it is not apparent at first glance. What we could be seeing is a consolidation phase. The differences are being sorted out, violently. Then all it will take is some type of major spark. The video was an excellent excuse. It cannot be all that hard to find another. Sooner or later, one will occur that spins out of control. (Far worse than the video, although that was bad enough) The financial crisis will be a good start. The hyperinflation in Iran may not be directly connected, but the cause of the unrest in Iran is the same as that in Greece and Spain. It is economic, and people will fight over scarce resources more quickly than any other single reason that I can think of.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

The "Rich" are not paying enough

So what is ‘Rich’? (Answer: Someone who has more than you.) The United States is a ‘Rich’ country. This means that we are not paying enough and we need to pay more? Who the hell has the right to take any action on this? Just because some leaders believe it to be true does not make it so. Besides, it all boils down to how you define ‘Rich’ and ‘enough’. What is ‘rich’ or ‘enough’ for you is not necessarily ‘rich’ or ‘enough’ for me. Same applies to ‘fair’. What is ‘fair’ to you may not be ‘fair’ to me. So the answer to the Rich not paying enough is to raise taxes only on ‘Them’. This is such a simple, ‘fair’ solution. Yet this is where the government takes away my house. I have lived in my current house for 14 years. My taxes already exceed the mortgage payment (Including insurance) by more than $100.00 a month. I have a house. To millions of other Americans who do not own a home, this makes me ‘Rich’. And I will only mention in passing about the rest of the world and how few of them own their home. The value of my house has dropped quite a bit over the past 5 or 6 years. Yet my taxes have been and are still going up. Unless my income keeps going up that much (Which it has not) then I am going to lose my house, sooner or later. I guess we just have too many ‘rich’ people in this country. Then we have the hidden tax. I am talking about inflation, or the dropping value of the currency. This impacts everyone, most of all the ‘poor’ and people on fixed income. This is because they can’t make additional money as fast as the value is dropping. This is the tax that hits all of us because we are a ‘rich’ country and need to pay our ‘fair’ share. It is only ‘fair’ that all of us ‘share’ this burden because we are not paying ‘enough’. And I thought that President Clinton was full of shit with how he defines ‘IS’.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

The world has a Churchill today

Netanyahu said in an address to our Congress: "My friends, you don't need to do nation building in Israel, we're already built! You don't need to export Democracy to Israel, we've already got it! And you don't need to send American troops to Israel, WE CAN DEFEND OURSELVES!!!" If this does not sound like Winston Churchill, then I do not know what does. One big difference today: I am not so certain that the U.S. is going to back him. Eventually, he got us to support his cause because it became OUR cause. I do not see this today. The first thing that President Obama did was send the bust of Churchill back to England. If we are to support the new Churchill, we will need to CHANGE our leadership.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

The Middle East

The financial position of the United States is that of a large debtor. This position is even more advanced for Europe. This cannot go on forever. Sooner or later something will upset these fragile situations. Say, for example, interest rates go up. Both the U.S. and Europe may easily reach a situation where the economies will not be large enough to service the debts. This will be bad enough for both the U.S. and Europe, but other parts of the world will be in far more serious shape. The Middle East is not just one of the least productive areas in the world. The Middle East is also dependent upon the rest of the world’s productivity to help sustain what little it does have. Oil is about the only major source of external revenue. The export of oil is dependent upon the major economies of the world for demand. This makes the Middle East much more vulnerable to economic shocks than much of the rest of the world. What we are seeing today is only the beginning. Fighting over scarce resources is as old as man. And if this financial trend continues, it cannot be much longer before economic stress reaches some type of breaking point. I believe the possibility of a depression is far less likely than some type of currency crisis, like hyperinflation. Maybe not as severe as what was seen in German in the 1920’s, but something worse than the inflation the U.S. had back in the late 1970’s. The Middle East suffered severe shocks and underwent significant change as a result. The government of Iran became a new source of hostility and violence. The Iraq-Iran war used up a lot of the resources and manpower that became expendable as a result. And the world was less connected in the late 1970’s and 1980’s than it is today. We are seeing the initial signs of this pattern again today, and as can be expected, it is much more widespread. I am a firm believer in capitalism. History has demonstrated that capitalism through free markets is the most productive system ever devised by man, not even close. The United States became the largest economy in the world by the use of this economic system. This is CHANGING. The pattern over the past 70 or 80 years has been a steady increase in percentage of the U.S. economy being allocated and run by the government. This pattern has been significantly increased just in the past 4 years. Between bailouts of the banks, bailout of General Motors and when health care kicks in, something like 45% of the private sector of the U.S. economy would have been taken over by the government. Even if the figure is less, the overall effect can only be a far less productive economy. The U.S. is the driving economy of the world. If our economy is less productive, the rest of the world will feel the impact, and this impact will be magnified. The Middle East will be one of the first areas of the world to feel this. And we are beginning to see the results. It can only be a matter of time before something breaks. Unless significant, real CHANGE is implemented that reverses this pattern, something has to break. People and nations will wage war over scarce resources. Sooner or later, enough excess manpower with little to do will become expendable. A major drop in productivity can easily be the tipping point. The Middle East is a good place to watch for indicators because that area of the world is one of the most vulnerable and most likely to show signs of stress and unrest. *I am calling attention to the Middle East, but this analysis can be applied to the Islamic world as well. Islam is the basis of the culture in the Middle East. Islamic culture includes other parts of the world with similar economic problems and dependency. I would expect similar results and reactions in these parts of the world as well.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

We are accomplishing our goals?

“U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the last of the 33,000 "surge" troops that President Obama dispatched to Afghanistan have left the country, leaving 68,000 American forces to fight the war. Panetta argued that the surge had accomplished its goals of reversing the Taliban's momentum and building up the Afghan security forces.” What a far cry from the announcement of withdrawal of ‘surge’ troops in Iraq. At least the world was quiet after the Iraqi drawdown. Today, the Muslim world is on fire. And we are winning? WRONG. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drew in massive amounts of enemy personnel and resources to wage war against a conventional army. Irregular units do not match up well against mechanized units, particularly in the desert which is the ideal environment for us. The drain of attrition is now much lower for our enemies. The re-deployment of their forces and resources are now being seen throughout the region. And U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta thinks that we are accomplishing our goals? We are losing the war. It is only a matter of time before WMD enters the picture. Then the wars in the Middle East will be seen as the prelude that they are.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Major war more likely today

This war is going to become much larger before it is over. That said I do not believe that it will properly begin just yet. Wars have a nasty habit of going out of control and blowing up. It is only a matter of time before this happens. We are much closer today but I do not believe that we are quite there yet. We are seeing financial crisis in Europe and the U.S. The impact on certain vulnerable parts of the rest of the world will be magnified. I am a firm believer that many wars are caused because of economic reasons. You are not nearly as likely to attack someone over their different belief in God as you are to take his wallet and steal its contents. The God thing is the excuse. What if not enough food or water was available to go around? You would have to fight for survival. All we need is for food prices to go way up and we could expect violence in other parts of the world where the people have fewer resources to rely upon. The Middle East (The Islamic world) is one of the poorest and least productive areas on Earth. It makes sense that violence would spring up there whenever economic conditions take a bad turn for the worse. With the four largest economies in the world struggling, it can be no surprise that the Islamic world is beginning to burn right now. This is a major indicator that leads me to believe that a major regional, if not world war, is much closer today than in decades past. We have a number of indicators that have been pointing this way for a long time. I have been saying for more than 10 years that it is only a matter of time. Today, the excuse is the video. The real cause is a combination of economic and ideological stress. The price of commodities has shot up over the past few years. Food in particular is under a lot of pressure in part because of the drought in the U. S. combined with the emphasis upon bio-fuels. Toss in the generally less productive nature of the U.S. economy caused by a much larger percentage of government allocation of national resources and the violence today can be seen as a potential curtain raiser. The four largest economies in the world are struggling and we in the U.S. are staring at a fiscal cliff. It will be bad here in the U.S. It will be worse in other parts of the world, the Islamic world in particular. In other words, the world is much closer to a major regional if not world war today than it has been in a very long time.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

We are losing

“At the American embassy in Cairo, some protesters scaled the walls and in the courtyard were able to take down an American flag and put up a black Islamic flag associated with militant Islam.” ( 9/12/12) This on the same day the ambassador of Libya was killed. On 9/11. I guess that President Obama actually saved the lives of some of our military who SHOULD have been present. President Obama would have standing orders to NOT have had arms to defend themselves so they would have made great additional targets. I heard on CNN an analyst say that Libya “did not work out”. We had intervened in order to stop the slaughter of Libyan citizens. So I guess it did not work out because it is Americans who are being slaughtered. And Egypt is not working out either. Why does this not surprise me? Riots are happening all over the Muslim world. And we are to believe that this is only a very small number of ‘extremists’? We are losing the war.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012


I have read a number of articles that point to the government of Syria as attempting to prevent an Islamic takeover in Syria. If these articles turn out to be accurate, then I was wrong about Syria. I had judged Syria as being a huge supporter of Islamic nationalism through its support of Hezbollah and other Islamic groups. It is possible that the Syrian government did a lot of this because they needed to follow orders, but this seems unlikely to me. This view of mine may be a product of my culture, as we tend to be intellectually honest (A trend that is changing) Islamic culture is very deceptive as this is an entrenched method of operation and has been for many centuries. (More than a millennia) I have difficulty accepting and adjusting to this concept of another culture. It is hard to figure out just what is going on within Syria, but the general trend throughout the region is a rapid rise of a stronger Islamic legal system and nationalism. This cannot be good for the U.S. nor the rest of the non-Islamic world as we are in the 'house of war'. If Syria does become more of an Islamic state, then Israel in particular is in even greater danger. All supporters of Israel are next in line. The interest of the United States is losing throughout the region. The killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya yesterday is a good example. “An "angry crowd" marched on the consulate on Tuesday, furious about an online film considered offensive to Islam, Libya's Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif said Wednesday. The U.S. mission in Egypt was also attacked Tuesday in response to the film.” ( 9/12/12) It is in our (The U.S.) best interest for Islamic nationalism and government doctrine to die a slow death. What we are seeing today is a rise in both. We are in the ‘house of war’ and Islam is at war against us. It only stands to reason that if an enemy that is actively at war against you becomes stronger, it can only be a matter of time before you feel the effect. Wars have a nasty habit of going out of control. Wars are won by raising the level of conflict to a level that the other side either cannot or will not match. 9/11 was a wakeup call, and we fell asleep again. Our enemies may not make the same mistake this time around. (Although the damage seemed to be great, they did not hit us nearly hard enough)

Saturday, September 8, 2012

The republic is in danger

During the Democratic convention, a vote was held to put GOD and the capital of Israel being Jerusalem back into the Democrat party platform. The speaker took at least 3 votes and he was surprised how strong the NO’s were. The no’s were too strong to qualify as a 2/3 majority so he paused and tried again. And as they went on to the next vote, the NO’s became stronger. In no case could I see or hear anywhere near a 2/3 majority. The motion passed because that was what was wanted even though the rules specify a 2/3 majority. This sounds to me a lot like: “We need to pass this bill so that YOU can find out what is in it.” This is not representative government at work. It is Fundamental CHANGE. This is not like it is a surprise. President Obama has been very talkative about this issue and how much he is striving for its accomplishment. This is why he only grades himself “incomplete”. He has a long way to go to make us accept this as fact. Kind of like how President Obama chooses the capital of another country for THEM. President Obama does not want to recognize the capital of Israel as being Jerusalem. As if this is HIS choice and not theirs. So some other country decides that L.A. is the capital of the United States? Just who the hell do they think they are? Well, it makes more sense when you look at how Health Care was passed and this new definition on what a 2/3 majority means. I guess it really does depend upon how you define ‘2/3 majority’, or how you define anything else for that matter. Representative government is SO inconvenient. Better to just FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE the system so that you can do whatever you want. This is why our republic is in danger. The CHANGE is going to be implemented even if the majority is against it. It can only be a matter of time before we reach a situation where the choice of the minority is the only realistic path. The republic will then be lost in order to save the situation. Like Rome when Augustus came along. And President Obama is speeding this process up as fundamental CHANGE.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Traditional Islam is at war against us

Traditional Islam views the world as being in one of two houses: The house of Islam (peace) and the house of war. The house of Islam refers to areas of the world that are controlled by Islamic law. Generally, this requires an Islamic majority although that is not necessary as long as the legal system is in place. In order to implement Islamic law, Muslims do need to be in the majority simply because Islamic law is so harsh and dominating that it is worth waging organized warfare to stop it. Those ‘infidels’ who do not resist Islamic law and domination do not understand the implications of enforcement of that system of governance. Notice the violence in areas of the world where the Muslim population is getting anywhere near a majority. In these situations, enough people understand that it is worth waging war to prevent entering the house of ‘peace’. Once inside, there is no going back. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. This is why Israel will be forever the ‘occupier’ of ‘Muslim’ land. The ‘nation of Islam’ can never accept another national entity on this land. Islam’s foreign policy is at war against Israel in particular and the U.S. is right behind them on the list of enemies. We are both In the ‘house of war’. Being in the house of war means that warfare can be waged whenever it is to your (Islam) advantage. Note how Islamic foreign policy allows for ‘truces’ when war is NOT to Islamic advantage. As soon as that status quo changes, warfare is actually encouraged. These principals are certainly NOT in agreement with the modern concept of the nation-state and certainly are at odds with American interests. War is being waged on all levels although on the physical level the war is far below what is desired. It can only be a matter of time before that changes. Wars have a nasty habit of going out of control from time to time. It is clear that ‘the nation of Islam’ has a foreign policy that is permanently at war with the United States. (And every national government that is not in the house of Islam) 9/11 was inevitable when seen in this view. And more attacks can certainly be expected as soon as they become practical. It can only be a matter of time before WMD enters the picture. From Islam’s point of view, WMD (And particularly) nuclear weapons, are just the newest and best weapons that will do the most injury to its enemies. Islam is truly medieval in its view of the world and this is reflected throughout the Koran and the system of government that it defines. And that “government” is at war against us. (The United States)

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

We are losing

Over the past year and a half, I have devoted most of this blog to internal American affairs. I prefer to cover conflicts where U.S. interests are being challenged by foreign enemies. The nature of our internal conflict with President Obama has become of more immediate concern which is why I have made this emphasis change to internal conflict. And we are losing both conflicts. Islamic nationalism is winning all over the Middle East. One of the most glaring examples is Egypt. Now Egypt is becoming closer to Iran and it appears that cooperation will increase. How quickly and how far the relationship will develop remains to be seen. Egypt is only one of the more recent examples. What is of concern is that even supposedly ‘allied’ states are still a threat. I have not forgotten Turkey, who back in 2003 had given permission to the U.S. to stage our 4th Division out of their territory. Less than 2 days before our invasion of Iraq, this permission was revoked. This was intentional and intended to give direct and material assistance to our enemy. We have seen this type of action countless time on a small scale in just about all action we have taken in the Middle East. Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq. This can be expected to continue and even expand as our direct influence decreases throughout the region. Bin Laden himself said it: “We will back the stronger horse.” Internally, we Americans have actually elected the most anti-American ever to come near the White House. The private sector is being taken over by the government at an astounding rate, one which cannot last long simply because the pie is becoming so small that percentagewise it cannot be repeated even if attempted. This is the very foundation of American exceptionalism and American economic strength. Our economy is what has set us apart as Americans more than anything else. And we are CHANGING it, intentionally. What is even more of a concern is that this guy actually has a good chance at being re-elected. In decades past, he would not have stood a snowball chance in hell. “Once a population realizes that it can vote itself entitlements, fiscal responsibility becomes impossible.” We are seeing this today. Our inability to live within our means (Our government) is a real threat to the republic. The only way to reverse this (outside of the long shot of our population just deciding that we want to live with less) is to disenfranchise a large percentage of the population. This is the loss of the republic and we are heading toward this result at ever increasing speed. I believe that it is now easily within my own lifetime. (20 to 30 years) This is why I say that we are losing. We are going the way of the Romans, it is human nature. I want to slow it to a crawl, but the CHANGE is here and is being implemented intentionally. We are losing both internally and externally. It cannot be long before this becomes very clear to the majority of the population of not just our country, but the entire world.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

The KKK as a terror organization

I keep seeing and hearing about how domestic terrorism in the United States is similar to the Islamic terrorism seen in other parts of the world. That tactics is what tells us an attack is a ‘terror’ attack. The examples of domestic terrorism in the United States go back more than 100 years. Examples are plentiful of some ‘lone wolf’ or just a couple of guys who get an attitude and kill as many people as they can. They are usually quickly caught, or they kill themselves. About the only regular organization that I am aware of over the past 100 years of domestic American terrorism is the KKK. The KKK has been around since the U.S. Civil War. It has had three ‘surges’ in interest, the peak being in the early 1920’s with membership estimated about 3 to 6 million. It is unknown how much violence has been initiated by the Klan, but I can think of no examples of where the U.S. military was called in to restore order or contain the violence within the past 100 years. I would expect to find some examples in the late 1860’s as the country had just emerged from the Civil War and the military would be the main source of public control for at least the first 5 to ten years afterward. The major point is that the KKK is not generally supported by our population and gets no external support at all. To compare this with Islamic nationalist organizations who engage in terror tactics is a stretch to say the least. Islamic nationalist groups are well organized with state sponsors and military training and equipment. The KKK does not field combat units. The Islamic terror groups do. The KKK is only one organization, if you can call it that. The Islamic terror groups are numerous and widespread throughout the world. Islamic terror groups have plenty of local support and many obtain external support from national governments as well. This ability to actually fight a national armed force will naturally pit it against the host government, at least on occasion. History is full of examples of Islamic nationalist groups being engaged by the host country’s military. The police were inadequate for the job, so the military was needed. Not exactly what we have been seeing in this country. Yes the United States has domestic terrorism. All countries do. To compare the ineffective, disorganized and unsupported terrorism that we have seen in this country to the organized, effective, powerful and supported terrorist organizations and ideology that the Islamic nationalists have is like attempting to compare the Native American forces at the Little Big Horn to the German 7th panzer division in 1940. And this comparison would be giving domestic American terrorism a lot more credit than they deserve.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012


I have noted that I really do not want President Obama to become desperate in this election. I am worried about what he might do. You know the old story about accusations and how they can tell you more about the accuser than the accused? Well, this is a defining moment in America. Something like 50% of our population does not pay any Federal income tax. Our spending as a percentage of GDP is approaching European levels. Austerity like what is needed in Greece is not far away for the United States. Will we become like Europe or will we revert back to America’s greatness and implement real CHANGE? If real CHANGE is not implemented THIS election, I do not believe that our course can be reversed without the loss of the republic. (I am doubtful that we can do it now anyway, but just to stop it for a decade or so will still be better than nothing.) In other words, I am the one who is desperate. I see human nature taking over. Humans will take the easy path. (Not all the time) And it is easier to keep on doing what you are doing. The pattern of the past 80 years has been greater government involvement and control. What I call the Roman complex is taking over. As more and more people become dependent upon the government, the side in favor of doing the payouts receives automatic votes. If you are getting something for nothing, why would you want to CHANGE it? It makes sense that the people who want to implement these things will encourage EVERYONE to vote. Those who do not want to bother themselves to become informed and take the time and effort to research the issues who vote are susceptible to just doing what they are told instead of taking the imitative and deciding for themselves. It is easier and heck, why not vote for someone who will give you free stuff? This type of CHANGE is not reversible. Just look at Rome for an example. I want to slow it down to a stop, if not a crawl. President Obama is doing just the opposite. This is why I have become desperate. We are at a point of no return, if we have not passed it already. This is true desperation.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

A no vote is better than an uninformed vote

I watched part of an argument on Fox News about the voter ID laws. I can’t stand seeing people argue who are not listening to each other. Constant interruptions bother me. Anyway, one argument made was that ALL Americans should be allowed to vote. And we should be doing our utmost to help them get out voting. I must disagree. If someone is not willing to take the time and effort to become informed and go to through the process, he/she will be casting a vote that can easily be more damaging than constructive. After all, Adolf Hitler WAS elected. Not that we will do that, but to cast an uninformed vote is far worse than if the person did not vote at all. Then we have the potential fraud issue. One reason our republic is so strong is that the vast majority of our population accepts the results of our voting. If that confidence is ruined, the consequences will be severe. The results can vary in everything from a lack of interest voting in the first place to out and out rejection of our government. Our system relies upon our population generally following the law. If you don’t see the government as legitimate, I would expect law breaking to become far more common. Even the IRS is dependent upon the average persons’ honesty. Our very society would be in jeopardy. Violence and even revolution could result. This is why we must protect the confidence in the identification of the people who are casting their vote on Election Day. The amount of ID needed can be argued, but at the very least it should be government issued identification with a picture. The lack of the ability to ID yourself to this degree should disqualify you to act on something that is far more important than boarding a plane or picking up your on-line purchase at Wal-Mart. In the elections that I have participated in, all that was asked of me was to state my name and district. They looked me up and gave me a ballot. I could have been anyone. Anyone could have been me. What if someone else got there in front of me and used my ID? This is not very likely, but far more likely is a dead person who was registered and someone who knows about it uses it to cast additional votes. I am certain that you have heard about this. Political motivation is present here. I must admit, I would expect most who to be pushed into voting need would likely vote Democrat, so I would not be particularly pleased about this. But the opposite can also be said: Those who want to push people who are not likely to take the time and effort to vote know that the majority of these will vote Democrat. But it sounds better to say that they are more interested in not disenfranchising anyone. One last example: A vote is being held to build a new sewer system. A better and less expensive way is discovered but not in time to place on the ballot. Is it in our best interest to have a bunch of people who do not know anything at all about this sewer system actually voting and deciding if it should be built? What if you did your homework and voted against it because you know the new idea is a far better method and some of your neighbors who did not know anything at all about it voted for it? I will say it again: A no show for voting is much preferred over an uninformed vote.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Paul Ryan

I see the world today as having two major issues: 1) The rise of Islamic nationalism. This is the responsibility of the President. 2) The world financial crisis. (Europe and the U.S.) Of course, the world has many more issues than these, but these two for me are the most pressing. The rise of Islamic nationalism will take everyone’s attention. The choice of Vice President in this case does not make all that much difference unless Paul Ryan has experience or knowledge on this subject that I am unaware of. The financial problems of Europe and the rest of the world are not really something that the United States can do much about except to persuade and encourage. The financial crisis in the United States can be dealt with and Paul Ryan is one of the best choices in this area. (If not the best) It is much easier to spend other people’s money. Companies can and do this to a limited degree, but the constraints of the owners tend to keep this human weakness to a minimum. This is most obvious when you compare negotiations of unions. Companies are constrained by possibility of costs rising to the level of bankruptcy. Owners want to make a return on investment and need to keep costs at a certain level. Unions can only collect a certain amount before they run into a real fight. Government constraint is simply how much can the people pay? On the Federal level, bankruptcy is not really a possibility. Government negotiators can just offer more and more until the situation is reached that we are seeing across the country today. By choosing Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney is demonstrating that he is not just serious about the fiscal problems of our Federal government. While Mitt Romney is no slouch when it comes to financial matters, this team is declaring that IF elected (A BIG IF) they intend to tackle our fiscal problems by at least a major attempt at limiting Federal spending. In other words, they intend to treat the federal budget like they would with their own money. The massive spending of our Federal government is something that is so badly in need of restraint that it amazes me that we are even debating this issue at all.

Friday, August 10, 2012

We are in for a rough ride.

This election is going to become dirtier than any before it. The negative attacks have been a pattern in politics for a long time. However, we are going where we have never been before. An ad that links Presidential candidate Romney to the death of a woman was aired recently. I have not seen the ad but that does not matter. What does matter is that ideas like that are making it difficult, if not impossible to remain an independent. Ads like this leave no middle ground. No room for compromise. This trend may have already been in place and this ad just takes the next step. What is more concerning is that because this pattern is becoming so extreme, it is becoming more difficult to concentrate on the meaningful issues of the day. The issues of Immigration, the economy of the U.S. and the world, the rise of Islamic nationalism, just to name a few. These issues are still here and what are we hearing about them? How the other guy is responsible. No more, “The buck stops here”. Not exactly an American concept. President Obama is CHANGING America alright. What is a major concern here is that President Obama cannot afford to lose this election. The CHANGE is incomplete. Much of the action that has been taken over the past 3 and ½ years can be undone. This is unacceptable to President Obama. All that hard work wasted? He cannot allow that to happen. On top of this, I just cannot see President Obama being a graceful loser. The CHANGE must be permanent. The best way to do that is to win the election. President Obama has demonstrated a remarkable ability to skirt the Constitution. This is particularly true concerning limits on Presidential powers. This is where his strength is and I expect him to use it fully. CHANGE has the benefit of allowing any limits to be moved or stretched or eliminated altogether. CHANGING the rules of the game has lots of advantages. This leads me to believe that this election is going to become very ugly. (We have not even reached the debates yet.) President Obama cannot afford to let what happened to President Carter happen to him. He needs more distractions. He needs BIG distractions. The stage is set for cheating like we have never seen before. “We need to pass this bill so that YOU can find out what it does.” OK, apply this concept to the election. What will be off limits with this type of thinking? Not much, if anything. CHANGE indeed.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

President Obama and I are opposite

President Obama is far more adept at making enemies than he is loyal allies. I am speaking about the national level, not personal. I have no idea what the guy really is like, except that I am opposite in the way that I look at the world from his view. In many ways, I can accept these differences, but I am an American above all. This is the area of my most concern. Our allies: I believe that our allies are more like us than most of the rest of the world. As with any general rule, exceptions can easily be found. But in general, it makes sense that our allies share common goals and beliefs. President Obama wants to CHANGE this. Our economy: I believe that America’s greatness originates in our historical distrust of government and our version of limited government that allows the population to privately own the methods of production. Simply put, you will take better care of your house if you own it. Even more so, if you own the land, you will develop AND maintain it better than ANYONE who does not. President Obama wants to CHANGE this. Our country: I am loyal to America. I am male and accept the fact that I could have been conscripted into our military if our government deemed it necessary. I also accept the fact that my two sons run this risk as well when they reach the proper age. What I am attempting to say here is that I am loyal to AMERICA above ALL else. President Obama wants to CHANGE this. OH! Not my loyalty, but the independence of America itself. We as a country need to join the world collective and cede at least more of our sovereignty to world organizations instead of jealously protecting our own self interests. Our closest allies are England and Israel. Think we are close to them right now? I am surprised that Germany and Japan are not being snubbed by President Obama, but I guess he is busy snubbing Poland because they are much closer to the action. We did not build this country. Our government allowed it to happen. The first statement is false, but I can see how President Obama sees the second statement and logically believes the first. Our country was founded by people who understood how EVERYONE acts in what they perceive to be their own best interests. President Obama cannot believe this. It is obvious that he believes that he can allocate our national resources better than we can. World organizations are likewise better suited than America to direct the interests of the world. America should just accept this. We need to CHANGE from our jealous protection of our interests to allow the world to decide what is in our collective best interest. I just do not see how two people can be more opposite on the major issues of the day.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

New Strategy?

The July/August issue of Foreign Affairs magazine has an article titled:”Obama’s New Global Posture”. (Michele Flournoy and Janine Davidson) The article argues for this strategy of ‘forward engagement’. It makes a number of points to reinforce this ‘posture’. By stationing more of our activity abroad, we make our influence greater and deterrence stronger. I have lots of problems with this article, but three stand out: 1) Sorry, but I am a BIG believer in defense in depth. This strategy has it’s uses, but the best pure defenses are ones that have depth in both space on the battlefield and its material resources. 2) The most unstable region in the world is the Middle East and the surrounding areas. If having forward bases are so important, why is the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan? Pakistan and Iran are the greatest threats in the area and Afghanistan borders BOTH countries. 3) It is riskier. Forward posturing is riskier than defense in depth. Like blitzing your linebackers. It does work at times, but to rely on it all the time is risky. Certain times require a forward defensive position. In 1944, Rommel knew that with the U.S. and English control of the air, reinforcements would need to be very close to the front because any and all movement would be curtailed by enemy air power. Conventional doctrine did not apply in this case. Is the U.S REALLY in a situation that demands a forward posture? In certain parts of the world it makes sense on the tactical level, but this article is arguing that this posture is the best strategic positioning of our forces today. I not only disagree, but believe that this is a very dangerous position to take. You just never know when a critical situation will arise and a defense in depth is generally the best way to minimize your losses and recover your position.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The tea party is me

The first red flag was in 2008 when I saw David Letterman interview Barak Obama. I noticed that he spoke very moderately, but what he was saying was not moderate. OK, I voted against Jimmy Carter both times and even though he was a disaster, I lived through it. I regard President Clinton as a successful Democrat in many ways, although in foreign policy (My strength) I felt that he was dangerously aggressive with international treaties. But I lived through him as well. President Obama began doing many things that worried me, but I could live with. Then came Health Care. From what I could see, the resistance to Health Care was just as intense as the resistance to President Regan’s attempt to modernize Social Security back in the mid-1980’s. The resistance was just as intense as the resistance to President Clinton’s attempt at national Health Care. And President W. Bush failed with a similar amount of resistance when he again attempted to modernize Social Security. The final straw was when Nancy Pelosi said that “we have to pass this bill so that you can find out what is in it.” I called the offices of both Senators for my state. (And my representative in Congress) This was the first time in my life that I had ever called a political office before. I told them that I was 51 and never been politically active. I had never sent money to ANY campaign. I told them that if they passed this bill with all of the resistance that I am seeing, I WILL become active and I will send money to your opponents. And I have: In 2010 I sent $100.00 to Congressman Joe Walsh’s campaign and another $100 to the RNC. Sorry, this is not much, but it was a start. If millions of others did as I did and became active? It would not take that many new people to have a strong impact. This year, I have sent another $150.00 to Congressman Joe Walsh’s campaign even though he is no longer my representative. I have sent another $150.00 to the RNC. I have also joined the NRA even though I have NEVER and still to this day, do not own a firearm. I calculate that I have spent about $500.00 in 2012 so far. This is not very much, but certainly more than ever in my life. This is the tea Party. Not all of it, but I am certain that most of the members of the Tea Party were relatively inactive in politics until the past few years. I am one of them. If we have half a million people do what I have done, we are talking $250,000,000.00. This is not an inconsiderable sum. And this is what is happening, just maybe not this big. We need to win this election so big that we can reverse all the damage just from the past 3 years. I want to avoid passing or repealing laws just so that our population can find out what it does. However, this is where the republic is in danger. It may come to that. This is why I have become much more involved. I have to. We will not be able to recover if President Obama becomes re-elected. The situation is that extreme. Makes sense with our President being as extreme as he is. And he saved us from a financial brink? And he did this without a budget? President Obama CANNOT run our economy better than we can. And we in the tea party are the ones who will stop him if that is possible. Joe Citizen

Friday, July 27, 2012


I pulled this from Fox News. “He said the United States is not going to travel beyond low-Earth orbit on its own and that no country is going to make it to Mars without international help. Bolden has faced criticism this year for overseeing the cancellation of the agency's Constellation program, which was building new rockets and spaceships capable of returning astronauts to the moon. Stressing the importance of international cooperation in future missions, Bolden told Al Jazeera that the moon, Mars and asteroids are still planned destinations for NASA.” Fox (NASA Chief: Next Frontier Better Relations with Muslim world) So I guess it is beyond our capabilities to EVER be able to take the next step without other countries help? Not exactly an American way of looking at things. From this statement, he must believe that we are NOT a nation of achievers nor will ever be again. Once again, not exactly an American way of looking at things. Notice how Mars and asteroids are left until the end. So NASA is going to direct its energies to helping fellow Muslims as a priority that will not hinder its mission to explore space? The cancellation of the program to return to the moon does not tell us anything? The ultimate source and responsibility for all of this B.S. must be the White House. Any President opposed to this (And I would expect ALL of them to be) would intervene. I guess if President Obama believes that he can run our economy better then we can (Without even making a budget) he can run NASA better than anyone else. Yet is this new CHANGED direction really in America’s best interest?

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Gun control

We can expect a lot of calls for more gun control as a result of the Colorado massacre. This is like a bad movie, when you know what is going to happen next. First, attacks upon conservatives to pin the blame upon us. The Tea Party ideology is responsible for the Colorado massacre. Just like when the congresswoman was shot a few years ago. Next, more gun control is necessary to prevent anyone from doing anything like this ever again. As if the supposed ‘safety’ is worth the loss of our freedom to bear arms. Wars are fought over issues like this one. Hey, why don’t we pass a new law that prohibits firearms, so that “You can find out what the law does”? This is another issue that would justify a war. Our republic is in danger the likes of which we have never seen before. This is not because we are becoming more violent, although that is a symptom. It is because we have lost sight of what the historical function of government is. Example: The entire idea of insurance began with groups banding together to protect each other from catastrophic loss. A group of merchant’s band together to protect each other from being wiped out by a single ship being lost. Today, I purchase insurance for my house and car to prevent being wiped out financially by accident. The function of insurance is NOT replacement of loss. It is supposed to protect me from catastrophic loss. Today, many people seem to think that insurance is to replace anything that is lost or to pay for something in advance. The Affordable Health Care ACT is another fine example. This issue not about health nor is it about guns. It is about control and power.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Where did the "Arsenal of Democracy" go?

Although I disagree with FDR’s general economic policies, I can’t help but admire his foreign policy, at least prior to United States involvement in World War II. We needed to be in that war and he helped get us there. Better yet, he was working since 1938 to prepare our armed forces for the struggle. Many of our aircraft and ships that won the war were designed in 1938 and 1939. We must have spent some amount of money to have all of these modern designs ready for production. Did you ever wonder why it was that the U.S. had 3 new fast battleships in 1942? We only had 9 in 1941, yet we had a full 33% more coming in the very first year of the war. It took several years to build one of those things. This is only one of numerous examples. FDR was not just boasting: The U.S. WAS the Arsenal of Democracy. Yet it was private ownership that designed and built that arsenal. It was the very lack of government control of our economy that made us as strong as we were. Where is this arsenal today? Democrats don’t seem to want to have anything to do with it. Not only have Democrats become the party of George McClellan again, but Democrats want to ‘Fundamentally Change’ the economy that maintains our arsenal. President Obama is succeeding. The U.S. economy is staggering. We have not seen any real ‘recovery’ since President Obama ‘saved us from an economic cliff’ in 2009. What we are seeing is a socialist economic result. The low percentage of ‘growth’ that we have been seeing are typical of government run economies. (Actually, pretty good returns for government run economies, probably because we still have some stubborn capitalists who are still driving what little growth we are having.) In other words, the U.S. is NOT the ‘Arsenal of Democracy’ anymore. Not only are we not facing our enemies overseas, we are “Fundamentally CHANGING” our economy away from those very concepts that gave us the strength to win World War II. In 1900, the percentage of our economy that was allocated by the U.S. government was well under 1%. With the takeover of our Health Care system, (plus all of the other takeovers of banks and other companies) this percentage easily tops 50%. If you believe as President Obama does, that government can allocate our national wealth better than if privately controlled; this would make our economy much, much stronger. If he is correct, not only should we begin to see massive growth, but the next war should be a piece of cake as our ‘arsenal’ should become much, much more powerful than it has ever been. The history of our country has demonstrated that this is NOT the case. This will NOT happen if President Obama becomes re-elected and is able to continue his ‘fundamental CHANGING’ of America.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

President Bush's policies destroyed our economy

"President Bush’s policies destroyed our economy." I heard this statement on Fox News by a person who was attempting to defend President Obama’s policies. What worries me here is that she must really believe this. Limited government over economic matters (And just about everything else) is what built this country. I have thought that U.S. history had proved beyond doubt that this sound economic principal was the best, more fair and most effective way to allow an economy to run. We kicked the English out because of the effect that taxes were having upon our commerce. Today, it takes the average American until May 15th (Much later after Obama care kicks in) just to pay our Federal taxes. Toss in state and local taxes and that date is pushed back to the end of May or beginning of June. June 30th is the last day of the 1st half of a year. This is close to 50%. (The actual figure I read is 44%) A century ago, this percentage was well under 1%. It will prove impossible (without dictatorial powers) to move our taxes back to 1% again and I am certain that this would not be wise in any case. However, Republicans in general and President Bush in particular attempt to reverse this trend. This interviewee believes that any policy designed to accomplish this is destructive to our economy? The obvious conclusion is that she believes that our government can allocate the national resources of the U.S. more ‘fairly’, wisely and more effectively than we can. Not exactly the concept that our economy was founded upon. And to reverse this or at least slow it down is destroying it? Accusations tend to tell you more about the accuser than the accused. In this case, the accusation is telling us that President Obama is doing the destruction in our economy. He is doing EXACTLY what he said that he would do: “FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE” America. Who is really destroying what? Our health care system is one of the few economic places where America is still leading the world. This is because it was set up to make money, or profit. Now with government in control, we can expect our health care system to run into the same problems that other centrally managed health care systems experience: Shortages and cost overruns followed by austerity and cutbacks in service. Just look at England and Canada’s health care. This is what we can expect in 20 or 30 years. And President Bush destroyed our economy? Oh, I forgot. The booming economy that we enjoy today is all Bush’s fault.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Israel is the warmonger and responsible for the conflict

Israel inflicts far more losses and damage upon their enemies, so they must be warmongers. I recently read this most stupid argument again. I guess the idea is that Israel has inflicted more losses and damage when they do decide to wage war or use their military than what they lose themselves. 1) In wartime, this is the idea. As Patton said, nobody ever won a war dying for their country. They won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his. 2) Just because one side is better at waging war does not make them warlike. This would mean that all forces that won wars throughout history were warlike. Maybe some were. Maybe even most, but I doubt that. The winners were just better at it. Maybe they had better weapons or were better led. It does not mean that they were the ‘bad guys’. I like to use the example of the war between Japan and the U.S. 1941-1945. We killed millions of Japanese, soldiers and civilians alike. We lost 40,000 dead. So this makes us warmongers and the ‘bad guys’ who were responsible for the conflict? This argument is so dumb that I am surprised that it is still around. Maybe this is why socialism is still thought of as being a better economic system. People just don’t want to see otherwise. It must be in their interest to believe this way, because balanced assessment would definitely prove otherwise.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

President Obama is looking for distractions

Obama to push extension of middle-class tax cuts JULIE PACE Associated Press The Associated Press Monday, July 9, 2012 7:19 AM EDT Obama, in an address from the White House Monday, will call on Congress to pass a one-year extension of tax cuts for households making less than $250,000 a year, The House GOP is expected to make its own push this month for an extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year, including reductions on wealthier income earners. End article. The extension for one year of these tax ‘cuts’ is just an attempt by President Obama to look like he is moderate. The effort involved would not even be worth it, both to push it through and to fight it. And President Obama certainly can’t care much less if it passes anyway because it goes against what he wants to do, which is why some believe that this is being moderate and considerate of the other side. A year extension is like a one-year raise after which you go back to the same pay? This is an attempt at a distraction, nothing more and nothing else. I love this one. “Wealthier income earners”. These people are wealthier than who? You? Me? What kind of a standard is this? It is always the other guy who makes more than I. It is always the other guy who is greedy or inconsiderate. As a society, we Americans are certainly wealthier than most if not all of the people in the world. At least, we used to be. This is what President Obama is CHANGING. This CHANGE is certainly not for the better, except for those few exemptions that President Obama will expertly install. This is another distraction by placing blame on those ‘wealthy’ people instead of the management of the system itself. After all, President Obama believes that he run our economy much more wisely than we can, so a struggling economy would only point to his economic miscalculations.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Kenneth Waltz is nuts

I read his article in Foreign Affairs. (July August 2012) I know that you can do this to me if you cut up what I write. However, this is too much. He seems to believe that we can have 3 outcomes of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons; I believe that we have almost infinite possibilities and he boils all of human nature down to three outcomes! “Final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored”. I guess he means that military power is restored in Iran’s favor. And he sees this as a good thing that will lead to the end of the Middle Eastern war that actually has been much longer than a few decades long? “Iranian policy is made not by “mad mullahs” but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders. REALLY? The only other time in recorded history that we have seen repeated suicide attack had leaders who committed suicide when they lost. Hitler’s German saw some of this, but Japan made it pale by comparison. And you want to gamble potential nuclear war over the Stability of the leaders of similar groups? In Kenneth Waltz view, the purpose of Iran seeking nuclear weapons is for defense and security. I have to agree with him here: Security from potential counterattacks as a result of Iran become more active in its war against the United States and Israel. Iran began its war against the U.S. almost immediately after they took power in 1979 with the seizure of the U.S. embassy. One of the more recent acts was the planned assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington. So Iran will become more cautious if it obtains the bomb? This is because everyone else has done so. Forgetting that the U.S. and Soviet Union engaged in numerous proxy wars directly related to the struggle against each other. And we are all compelled to do what those who have preceded us did. One thing about human nature: People will do the dimmest things. “Their has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states.” As if this cannot ever happen? And the last sentence takes the cake: “When it comes to nuclear weapons, now as ever, more may be better”. I must be a real idiot. I just cannot see how someone can actually believe this. Iran obtaining nuclear weapons will only add fuel to the fire in the major battleground between Islamic nationalism and Western culture. To the medieval mind, nuclear weapons are just a bigger, better bomb. Pakistan is dangerous enough. If we add Iran in possession of nuclear arms, the threat of them being used only goes up, not down. All we will have to do is wait until the next war, which in the Middle East should not take all that long.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Repeal Health Care

The Health Care system in the United States is something between 15% and 20% of our economy. I have seen estimates as high as 47% of our private economy is now being controlled by our government that was not less than 4 years ago. Even as low as 33% represents an entire third! In less than 4 years? President Obama is doing EXACTLY what he said that he was going to do: “FUNDAMENTALY CHANGE America”. I have a personal stake in this. My oldest son has autism. As much as I want to see it, he will probably not be able to support himself after my wife and I are gone. This will make him directly dependent upon our government. No way in hell will he do nearly as well if I was ALLOWED to set up enough of an account to take care of his needs. I have enough knowledge about English and Canadian experience with government run health care systems to know that all permanently disabled people will be the first to have cost cutting measures enforced. Only those who are not ill will be better off and even then they will be paying more. The quality of care is bound to take a major hit, although most of the loss will not be felt until after the current crop of caretakers have left the field. It will begin with shortages of drugs, although that will become the choice of many physicians as a cost cutting measure. My son will not be handled as an individual with particular needs and will be drugged whenever he becomes disagreeable. He does not become violent, but think that they will know this? The growth of knowledge in the field regarding autism will dry up as cost cutting measures take hold and no money will be available for research and development. It will be cheaper at first, but it will not be long before than changes along with quality. We need to repeal Health Care so that I can figure out a better way to care for my son after he is gone, and not Nancy. She really does not care about my son more than I despite what she claims.