Modern warfare and conflict

President Obama does not understand technology development

2012-01-28T04:20:00.000-08:00

Do you remember the rotary engine? It was going to revolutionize the auto industry. It should have, if the potential had developed as expected. Maybe it will someday, although time has a habit of making new ideas like the rotary engine obsolete before its time. Technology does not always go the way that you want it to develop.

History is full of examples of this kind. John Ericsson designed the U.S.S. Monitor. This revolutionary vessel had the worlds’ first rotating turret, something ALL warship design had from that time until the present. He invented a way to absorb the recoil of the guns because the turret did not have the space necessary to use conventional methods. The guns themselves were much more powerful because he had placed white-hot rings around the base. When they cooled, they were able to absorb a much greater shock from the larger powder charge that was loaded into the weapon. Yet John Ericsson also invented a new version of the steam engine. The small models he produced were wonders, but he could never get it to work on a large-scale engine. The invention of the internal combustion engine made his idea obsolete.

The point being that technology development can’t be pre-planned or pre-determined. Nobody could have known the impact of the rotating turret, or the problems in the rotary engine. Nobody can predict how effective solar power or wind power will become. It is foolish to attempt to make an artificial market for products of this type. The market will evolve and grow on its own if the product is useful and economical. Just look at the history of development of new inventions that have taken place in the United States from the early 19th century onward. President Obama either does not understand this concept, or else believes that he can allocate our national resources better than we can.

I keep hearing how the Obama administration is emphasizing so-called ‘green’ energy, like solar and wind power. At the same time, President Obama is attempting to limit the growth of the major, known source of energy in the form of oil. After the Gulf spill, new exploration and development was brought to a halt. The new pipeline that was to go from Canada to the Gulf is on hold. It appears that President Obama believes that he is correct about where to ‘invest’ our national energy resources as opposed to the experts who have been inventing and developing these resources for more than 100 years. At the same time, he is virtually ignoring the ONLY new power source invented in the past 100 years. (Nuclear)

Not that anyone knows which power source will eventually take over the position that oil holds today. The point is that it is better to let those who will benefit the most from new positions to be the ones who will decide where to ‘invest’ the resources of research and development. The history of the United States is VERY clear that PRIVATE ownership of the means of development and production is the most practical and accurate method of invention and production of new energy sources along with just about everything else. The exception is for those whom it is to advantage to have it otherwise. As we are seeing today.

President Obama does not know much about finances

2012-01-24T11:36:00.000-08:00

It all boils down to what you believe: If you have the ability to obtain an extra $5000.00, do you believe that you can handle this money better than anyone else can? (Government) Our country was founded upon the principal that the private individual (And organization) could and will allocate resources better than government. Our current President does not believe this. He believes that he can spend my money better than I can. A problem here is that President Obama does not understand basic finances.

If you were in financial trouble, whom would you call? I don’t know about you, but I would call a guy who was successful. (Yes, someone who was much ‘richer’ than I) Why would you bring in someone who was broke to help you set your financial house in order? This broke guy would be much more likely to steal some, if not all of what you do have than someone who was ‘rich’ and did not need your money. Besides, a guy who is broke is also much more likely to be envious of what you have than someone does who already has much more than you. On a national level, many people do not believe our country is in financial trouble. Even our President seems to disagree.

President Obama has claimed that he has saved us from falling off an economic cliff. I believe that this guy does not even know what an economic cliff is. After all, he did not have any real money when he took office. He does not have the knowledge and experience to even know what he is speaking about. His actions demonstrate this as well as anything else we can see.

The fact that our current President has not passed a budget in the 3 years that he has been in office tells us a great deal about his economic prowess. How can you get your financial house in order if you don’t know what your economic position is? How can you tell if you are reaching your financial goals if you don’t know what you are spending or what your revenue is? Balance sheets and budgets tell you this. President Obama’s recent call for more spending to ‘stimulate’ our economy tells us that he does not understand the first rule of getting a handle on financial trouble: Restrict spending to the level BELOW what you are taking in. His answer is to just raise income. (Taxes on the ‘rich’) This answer has a twofold problem:

1) It is not always possible to raise income. (You may raise taxes, but the net income generated from this will not necessarily go up)
2) Raising income does not address the real problem of imbalance in spending. In fact, raising income tends to cover up this important issue.

How many times do you hear about that ‘rich’ professional athlete who goes broke within a few years after he/she retires? Or how about the person who won a lottery who went broke? It was not income that was the problem. It was spending on assets that are expensive to maintain. As soon as the income begins to fall, as it inevitably does, they are in trouble because the spending is on a higher, fixed level. This is EXACTLY what President Obama is doing.

Government pensions and interest on our debt are the fastest growing costs. Without restricting spending, it will prove impossible to contain these two important items. As Greece and Italy have found out. And if the U.S. does not change course, we too will find out all about it.

What concerns me here is that so many still believe that Democrats are the ones who will be able to solve this problem. Democrats supposedly represent the ‘poor’ and ‘working classes’; who don’t have much in the way of assets or income. Republicans supposedly represent the ‘rich’ who only want to protect what they have. And yet, why would you choose a side that does not handle resources well over a side that supposedly represents successful financial practices?

The answer is jealousy. If you are envious of the people who have more than you, it makes sense that you would pick someone who tells you how bad these people are and how much better off you would be if you chose a different path. In other words, class warfare. President Obama does not know how to make our country’s economy run better. He is relying upon envy, jealousy and class warfare to keep the support of ‘the working class’, so he can accomplish his agenda. This way, we will all be the same. We will all be broke. Then we will all be better off. This is not financial awareness nor is it financial skill. This is taking advantage of people who do not know any better.

Investment income

2012-01-21T04:23:00.000-08:00

The attention that Mitt Romney is getting because he pays a 15% rate on most of his income illustrates a common problem we have in this country. It is called envy. Another way of putting it: Why should he pay less than I pay?

Unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income. In the distant past, it was not taxed at all. This was because the economic system that we have here in the United States needs capital in order to finance organizations that are the means of production. The idea is that taxes had already been paid on the earnings that had been saved. It was ‘after tax’ and any income generated was payment for the risk assumed by the investor. Even interest earned from a basic savings account is taxed at a 15% rate.

Savings are the product of your ability to spend less than what you make. This is basically what profit is, the difference between what a business spends and what it takes in. In other words, this is where the CAPITAL in capitalism originates. A high savings rate is not just a good thing for our economic system. Saving (profit) is the very lifeblood of the system. Taxing this is fraught with danger in that the system requires a certain level of re-investment just to maintain itself. Otherwise, it begins to shrink and becomes less effective as capital becomes more expensive.

On the other hand, not taxing this allows the system to build upon itself, which is EXACTLY what the United States did for well over the first century of our existence. Capitalism works by the slow accumulation of wealth through the re-investment of savings or profit. This is how the United States built the most powerful economic engine ever devised by man. Taxes are withdrawals from this system. You can do it, but you pay a long-term cost. And if you over withdraw, you can damage the structure to the point of bankruptcy. And we are doing this because some of us are jealous that others have accumulated more than we have. This is class warfare.

I am pleased that Mitt Romney is able to generate enough income that he does not have to work for a living. I wish that I could do the same. I have unearned income that helps my position. I gave up a lot in my past in order to accomplish this. I am also very proud of this. (I have always believed in multiple sources of income) Why should I be envious of others who have more than I? Why should I be jealous if I have to pay a higher percentage on my earned income? And most importantly, why should my interest or unearned income be taxed at the same rate as my earned income? In fact, why is it taxed at all?

I paid tax on the accumulated savings already. And I have assumed risk in the investment that is generating this ‘unearned’ income. I have had numerous failures where I lost my entire investment. Where was our government? I did not see any refund for ANY of my losses. In some cases, I was able to offset some of my losses against other income, but I still lost. That is the chance that I took. Which is why I receive money in the cases where I am successful. And this should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income where someone else takes the risk and the only risk I assume is my time and labor? No wonder our economy is in such trouble. We have only our envy and jealousy to blame. This is the basis of class warfare.

Israel is on the front line

2012-01-18T04:17:00.001-08:00

I find it interesting in this presidential election year; the confrontation with Iran is growing so heated. Well, with the course that the U.S. has been taking, it could have only been a matter of time. I guess President Obama does not believe that Iran is really all that much of a threat. Iran certainly is not the threat that the old Soviet Union posed.
After all, the Soviet Union has possessed the ability to devastate all of Europe AND the United States. The result could potentially make the entire planet uninhabitable for human life.

The Soviet Union WAS a very existential threat. However, they wanted their grandchildren to grow up. They proved it in 1962 whey they literally turned THEIR ships around. President Obama apparently believes that if faced with a similar situation, Iran would do the same. I do not, but in any case, Iran is certainly NOT the same threat that the Soviet Union posed. But what about the threat Iran poses to Israel?

Israel is a very small country. Only one or two nuclear explosions would end it all. By comparison, the United States could withstand several and would recover. (I am speaking of the physical damage and leaving out the potential threat of the EMP) The point I am attempting to make here is that although we have a lot to lose if Iran begins to wage nuclear warfare, Israel has more at stake. On top of this, Israel is far more likely to be the target of a nuclear attack than the United States. In other words, Israel is the front line and the United States is the reserve.

If Iran does start a nuclear war; most likely Iran and Israel (As we know them today) will cease to exist. The United States will likely survive. War is always a great gamble. What our current President is effectively doing is betting Israel’s life against the possibility of Iran choosing life, losing ‘face’ and ‘turning their ships around’. The way that I look at this is to not bet someone else's country on it, which is EXACTLY what our current President is doing. At least if you are going to bet someone’s life, it should be your own.

The war is NOT over

2012-01-14T04:42:00.000-08:00

Now that the U.S. has withdrawn from Iraq, we are beginning to wind down our activity in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden is dead. It certainly appears that many here in the U.S. believe that the war is over.

Although I did not expect us to get Bin Laden, I have expected President Obama to withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the election cycle of 2012. The death of Bin Laden is a great reason and excuse to execute what I believe was a priority of President Obama during his first term of office. The problem is that this is not the end of the war.

Osama Bin Laden believed himself to be a soldier of Islam. (Although I do not think of him as having been a ‘soldier’, strictly speaking, he was a soldier of Islam) He believed that Islam is a sovereign entity and acted upon it. He believed in ‘occupied’ Muslim land and Muslim ‘waters’. Notice how no nation would accept his body. Even Iran wanted nothing to do with his body, except for insisting that the body be treated in Muslim tradition. Bin Laden was loyal to no real nationality except to an Islamic caliphate. He believed in the national entity of Islamic government and was an Islamic nationalist. This belief is by no means uncommon, although he was more extreme than many and had plenty of resources to be able to act upon those beliefs. This is where the war begins. Take Iraq for example.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was resisted by not only the Iraqi military/population. After the fall of the Iraqi government, Iraq became ‘occupied’ Muslim land. Therefore, those who believed in Islamic sovereignty fought the United States ‘occupation’. Bin Laden’s forces were actually a minority of those that were deployed against our military. I am not referring to nationalist Iraqis. I consider Sadr to be one of those who fought for Islam, not Iraq. Sadr was an Imam who fielded his own militia to repel the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim lands. The army of Islam was mobilized, much the same as those armies of the Middle Ages had been, and how Islam has historically fielded its armies. Another case in point: Israel.

Arabs don’t really care about the Palestinians by themselves. Otherwise, they would accept the Palestinians within their own countries. They do not because they want to use them to fight the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim lands. In other words, Israel is ‘occupying’ land that Islam had controlled in the past. This is why no peace can be found without the destruction of Israel. A problem here is that even if the land that Israel is on does revert to Muslim control, the war will not be over.

By withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States is not challenging the sovereignty of Islam. Because so many believe in Islam as a national entity, they will continue to wage war against us. The war will only move on to other places where Islamic nationalism conflicts with modern nation-states.

I don't know much about Ron Paul, but he (And the American public) is DEAD wrong about the war in Iraq. We attracted people who want to kill us into Iraq, a desert that is ideal for mechanized warfare, which the U.S. excels at. The match up was good for us, bad for our enemies.

The problem is that we are leaving. The war has not really begun yet and we seem to think that it is over. Our enemy is committing some assets in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the attrition is down. So the extra assets will be deployed elsewhere. Not a good match up for us. Our schools and shopping malls (I count the western world as being us) against their suicide bombers and people armed with machine guns. This war will go on. A major problem here is that time is NOT on our side. It can only be a matter of time before our enemies obtain WMD. Once this happens, all of the wars going on will be minor in comparison to the casualties that will be inflicted.

2012-2013

2012-01-11T06:58:00.000-08:00

Something BIG is going to happen in the next two years. More likely this year rather than next. We just have too many things going wrong. Poor leadership from the U.S. leads the list. The U.S. debt is only beginning to be burdensome. (By some measures, debt has reached 100% of GDP) The out of control government pensions has only begun to bite. The debt of Europeans is creating 'crisis' after 'crisis'. The U.S. is having economic crisis after crisis as well. Just raising the debt limit is a good example. Then we have Islamic nationalists who are gaining the power of governments at an astonishing rate.

It has been a long time since the world has seen a major war on anything like the levels of the first half of the 20th century. All it is going to take is some unforeseen event that upsets the house of cards. I suspect that it will begin with an economic event. I am a firm believer that people fight over scarce resources more than anything. All it will take is some traumatic economic event. I hope that we will be able to avoid this. From what I am seeing today, I doubt that it can be held off for more than another year or two.

Who are the 40+% who back President Obama?

2012-01-07T04:15:00.000-08:00

Recent polling data has suggested that President Obama’s support has dropped back down into the lower 40s. A question that I have seen asked that got my attention was: Who are these 40 percent who still support him? Why are they so dumb?

1) Large percentages are believers in government running the economy better than the individual or private sector. On the Republican side, we have believers in capitalism.

2) Another sizeable percentage are those who are dependent upon the government for their means. Both are large motivations to see things in a different light than those of us who believe that the history of the United States proves differently. (1 and 2 are probably combined in many cases)

3) Another significant portion are those who vote Democrat in general. No matter what they vote Democrat (I am certain that Republicans have this type of support as well) I count my wife in amongst this group. Her family does not discuss politics. They avoid the subject because it can cause arguments. As a result, all of her family is rarely exposed to opposing points of view. I seek this out. This is why I watch Rachel Maddow, CNN and read articles in the Huffington Post. My family discusses politics and we argue. It is good practice because I do not insult any member of my family. We attack each others position, not the person. (This is probably where my wife’s family has trouble)

Rachel Maddow does not know who we have as President

2012-01-04T05:39:00.000-08:00

I have viewed a clip that has Rachel Maddow blasting President Obama for signing a law that allows for “prolonged detention”. I find this interesting because Rachel Maddow is a strong supporter of President Obama. It appears that the signing of this law that she recognizes as a threat to our republic is a surprise to her. While it is no surprise to me, I have to admit that I have been surprised by leaders that I support from time to time. But the surprises that I have had to endure are in no way like her surprise. Two examples I can think of.

President George H. Bush when he raised taxes. I believe that he did that to get Congress to agree to go to war against Iraq in 1991, but that is my take. The other surprise was when President Regan said that if we developed a missile defense, it might be a good idea to give that technology to the Soviet Union to enable them to protect themselves. After I thought about it, I understood what his idea was. I have to admit, he was more farsighted than I was because today, the nuclear threat is not so much from nuclear states as it is from Islamic nationalist groups that obtain nuclear weapons. It would be in mankind’s best interest if most, if not all nations have this technology. (Also no surprise: Our current leader is dead set against development in this direction of any kind.)

What interests me the most here is that although I have been surprised by leaders that I have supported, that surprise was not anything that was a real threat to our republic. It must be quite a shock to someone like Rachel Maddow who believes that HER side defends Civil Rights far more than those Republicans to find out that a President that she supports is taking action so blatantly against Civil Freedoms. I doubt that it will change any of her views, as it should. My view has been and still is that Democrat economic theory will eventually be a major cause of the loss of our representative government. I see President Obama as only going about it at a much faster rate than any of his predecessors. The point is that even now, supporters like Rachel Maddow really do not understand the implications of the leadership that they support.

The U.S. lost the war in Iraq?

2011-12-31T04:08:00.000-08:00

Recently, I received a message from a person who believed that the United States had lost the war in Iraq. Apparently, he believes that our losses exceeded that of our enemy and we failed in our objective of defeating our enemies in Iraq. This is my reply:

Dear Mr. X,

Be careful about accusations. They tend to tell more about the accuser than the accused.

BTW. I believe that you referred to Pyrrhic victory. (279 and 280BC) You know the victories that cost so much that it contributes to losing the war more than winning. (Actually, the Roman losses were higher in both battles. The Romans were able to replace their losses more readily than King Pyrrhus was) And if you believe that we lost in Iraq, you really can not know all that much about warfare. Of course, by our leaving, this places the position in jeopardy, but then I am certain that many people (Fox news included) don't understand the fundamental causes of the war.

I have been studying warfare for more than 40 years. Example: Do you know how heavy ammunition is? And that this is a major reason as to why in 2007 and 2008 we were in fact winning the war? If you like, I can send a complete discussion as to what the U.S. really did in Iraq. News reporting has historically been accurate about facts, like losses, but at the same time have shown a VERY low level and backwardness of analysis of warfare. About a 5th or 6th grade level, at best. (Including Fox News)

Another example: In 1971 I read a Chicago Tribune article that stated that the U.S. could NOT win in Vietnam because the enemy controlled the countryside and we only controlled the cities. (Not entirely accurate, but close enough) Yet we were losing in Iraq when the situation was reversed. (Actually, we dominated the desert far more effectively than the NVA and Viet Cong did in the countryside at any time during Vietnam.) We apparently could not win either war. WRONG.

I have studied news reporting in just about every major war since the invention of the printing press. Facts like ships sunk (Allied, not enemy) or planes shot down (enemy losses are notoriously inaccurate) and men killed and/or wounded tend to be fairly accurate. Analysis is almost ALWAYS inaccurate, inept and outright wrong.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are far more than what is actually going on in BOTH countries. This war has not really even begun yet. Just pray that it stays contained, because wars have a VERY NASTY habit of going out of control.

Economic danger

2011-12-27T16:19:00.001-08:00

The U.S. and indeed, the entire western world are in economic danger. The debt is almost unmanageable. The Fed will not raise interest rates, simply because they CAN’T. Just think of the U.S. debt as a large A.R.M. (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) Many people get into trouble because the interest rate can rise after the initial period of the loan. The payment goes up very rapidly if rates go up quickly. And the debt the U.S. government has issued is so large that if the interest rates go up any significant amount, the payment due will explode exponentially. The only way to pay will be to issue more currency. The risk of hyperinflation could easily become a reality. So the Fed will not raise the rates unless absolutely forced to. The big question is, how much time do we have?

It can only be a matter of time before interest rates begin to rise. It is a natural cycle and cannot be held off indefinitely. The situation could be made much better if the various governments went on large restricted spending diets. This would probably cause economic disruption and a major downturn in economic activity. However, it would be far more limited in impact and duration than if forces outside of our control triggered the downturn, particularly if hyperinflation becomes a reality.

I am the problem

2011-12-23T05:37:00.000-08:00

I have to admit, I had not ever thought of myself as being the problem American. I have bought into the American dream hook, line and sinker. I have bought into the American value system of hard work and nobody else to blame for my problems except for myself. I believe that America was great because of the economic freedom that our country provided to its citizens. We revolted from England because we saw the injustice of the taxation that England placed upon us and we determined that as a country, we would all be best off if our government allowed us to own the methods of production. We would all benefit from not just the ownership of the means of production, but benefit from the work that we were willing to put into doing whatever we wanted with it. I believe that the history of our country has proved this to be the best economic system ever devised. And yet, we are CHANGING this system.

President Obama is only the most recent and most extreme version of the pattern of CHANGE in our economic system. It is apparent to me that he and his followers believe that our economic system was and is so badly flawed that it requires ‘fundamental CHANGE’. I admit, NO system devised by man is without flaws. But what I am seeing is a complete dismantling of our private economic system in favor of an economic system driven by government decision making. President Obama is being successful in his efforts to CHANGE America. This is where I am now the problem.

One of the current issues is the tax cut extension. The solution that I favor is to implement the tax cuts as permanent. OK, politics will not allow for this, so we settle for a year extension. President Obama and Democrats want a two-month extension to give us more time. A problem I see here is that the programming can’t really be set up all that easily and this change would require more than two months to write up, test and implement. Not to mention that this would be expensive. Setting this aside, I have another idea:

Let’s pass a law that makes the tax cuts permanent. After President Obama signs it into law, HE can figure out what it does. I would expect him to say ‘take a hike’. And I am now the problem for having the same reaction to government takeover of close to 1/5th of our economy? (Health Care) If this makes me the problem American, then YES!

The Health Care bill was passed as opposition was growing. (Similar to the opposition that defeated both Republican efforts to modernize Social Security and the first attempt at a nationalized Health Care system) The Health Care bill was passed, “So that YOU can find out what is in it.” The Health Care bill is a permanent part of our legal system now, like Social Security and Medicare. It will take dictatorial power to rid us of this law. On top of this, we really don’t even know what it will be doing until well after the 2012 elections. The Health Care bill was passed because Democrats have wanted to nationalize Health Care in this country for more than half a century and they had the majority to do it. That was their best opportunity and they took it.

I guess I really am the opposite of Michele Obama. For the first time in my life, I am NOT proud to be American. I have never felt so pessimistic about my country. We have really CHANGED. Our government no longer does what we want. Our government does what it wants to so that WE can find out what it is doing. This is not what I think of when I think of my country. This is fundamental CHANGE indeed. I want to stop this, NOW. No more putting things off for 60 days and then decide what to do. No more putting things off until after the next election so that we don’t know what we really have until it is too late to change the people who bring it to us.

I really am the problem. I don’t like the way that President Obama and the Democrats have been running our country. The election of 2010 indicated to me that Americans in general agree with me. Well, I can’t blame President Obama for not changing his views, but I still don’t want to see any more CHANGE that he wants. In fact, I would rather have NOTHING done at all until after we are rid of him. I don’t want his signature on anything. No Deals that do not provide everything that I want, so that HE can figure out what it does after he has left office. President Obama has been successful. I have ‘fundamentally CHANGED’.

Suicide weapon

2011-12-20T06:31:00.000-08:00

We are not seeing the high profile suicide attacks recently. The suicide attacks are still occurring. With all of the unrest throughout the Middle East, I have been expecting otherwise. Maybe the needs of the populations are being met. More likely is that the suicide attackers are not needed right now. Suicide attacks have a high attrition rate, so you don’t want to use them unnecessarily. The following post is from 4/25/09 and contains many of the reasons that I believe that what we are seeing is a lull in suicide attacks.

4/25/09

“Today the popular belief is that the Japanese who took part in banzai charges, flew kamikaze missions, piloted kaitens and shinyo ‘bang boats’, or served as human mines, were all fanatics. Because many of the banzai charges were ordered on the spur-of-the-moment no doubt there was an element of fanatism in the army’s operations. But the kamikazes, kaiten and kairyu men were dedicated individuals whose calm acceptance of death illustrates the impact of ideological persuasion.” (A.J. Barker, Suicide Weapon, C1971, Page 157)

For the past 25 years or so, we have been seeing only the 2nd occurrence of the use of suicide as a weapon of war. The point here is that many of us believe that our enemies are only a very small minority of ‘fanatics’. Just the idea of a small number of ‘fanatics’ is incorrect. ‘Ideological persuasion’ is required to overcome the most basic instinct of all living things, survival. The suicide attacks we are seeing today are spread all over the Islamic world. They tend to be concentrated within areas of open warfare, but suicide attacks are occurring in many other parts of the Muslim world as well. Just the very size of the geographical area indicates that this ‘ideological persuasion’ is much more pervasive than a very small minority of ‘fanatics’.

Of large concern is that the suicide attackers are coming from such a large population. This population can be expected to produce far more suicide attackers if the need became obvious. It is also very unlikely that this ‘ideological persuasion’ can be altered in any significant way without some very large, traumatic event.
The first occurrence of the use of suicide as a weapon took nuclear weapons to put an end to it. (Many argue that Japan was on the verge of surrendering anyway, but no doubt the nuclear attacks sped up the Emperor’s decision to intervene and end the war.) The educational system of the culture that produced this first wave of suicide attackers was altered severely and thoroughly.

I expect that WMD will be used long before this current war of ‘ideological persuasion’ is over.

End Post

It does not seem possible to me that the issues at the core of suicide attacks have been resolved. Islam is a major part of the ideology of the suicide attackers and is showing little to no reversal of the basic teachings that inspire the attacks. Maybe I am wrong, but I just do not see democracy (As repulsive as it is to Muslims) taking root all over the Middle East. After all, much of the reason that Israel is so despised is because it IS a democracy.

Slavery and capitalsim

2011-12-17T06:54:00.000-08:00

I am of the view that capitalism was a major driving force behind the elimination of slavery in the United States.

The fact that mechanization reduced by significant amounts the amount of hand labor required in the farming industry is long accepted. The inventions of the reaper and cotton gin reduced the amount of people required to harvest these two important crops. In the North, this resulted in more manpower being available in the cities to work other tasks. Generally, it is accepted that in many cases, these new tasks required more skillful labor. In the South, the slaves that were no longer needed to perform this work were re-allocated to other tasks. The key here is that education and improvement of skill levels of slaves is discouraged. This would only tend to make the slaves more dangerous and more likely to desire to throw off the institution that was binding them. At the same time that capitalism is creating a demand for a more skilled labor force, it is providing the time to develop the view that slavery is an outdated and immoral concept.

I believe that President Obama is of the belief that capitalism was the driving force behind slavery. It is true that capitalism provided the ability to capture and export the slaves from one area of the globe to another. Profit was the motivation for the slave ships existence. Yet after slavery had been eliminated from the United States, capitalism flourished and slavery did not return. Slavery had been around since the dawn of man, and capitalism had only been thought of in the past 100 years. If you look at the world today, the areas of the world that still have slavery are controlled by autocratic governmental systems. The areas that capitalism flourished, slavery had disappeared almost immediately. The constantly expanding need for more advance skills in the labor force would prevent a return to a society that demanded a significant portion of the population remain functionally illiterate. And I will argue that capitalism provided the means to rid our country of this plague in the first place.

One of the major reasons that the U.S. Civil war was won by the North was because so much of the manpower in the South was unavailable to wage the war. At the same time, that same manpower that was unavailable to fill the ranks of the Southern armies was also limited in its ability to produce as much per hour of labor as the capitalist North. It is a well-known fact that the North was much more industrialized than the South. Slavery was a major part of the reason that the South was not as industrialized and capitalism was a major reason as to why the North was. And this is leaving out the human side of the equation.

On a psychological level, it makes sense that those living in the North desired to end the limiting factor in the growth of the country as a whole. As a person has more free time, they have the time to debate morality on a different level. Survival is not as all consuming. As wealth accumulates, people can afford to question the way that the system works and the values that they hold. Bondage of any type would become a target. For example, the right for women to vote became a target beginning in the early to mid-19th century in America. Eventually, this process resulted in the Civil Rights movement beginning in the latter part of the first half of the 20th century. The economic freedom that resulted from the success of capitalism was a major driving force behind these changes.

(This view could also be extended to the Islamic world. ‘Fundamental’ Islamic nationalists hate capitalist societies the most. Islam allows for all sorts of bondage. I am of the view that this is a major contributing reason as to why the Islamic world is so economically underdeveloped and hostile to the rest of the world, particularly the most prosperous parts of the world. The South did begin the war by attacking the North because the North was going to begin to actively prevent the growth of the bondage that the economy and society the South depended upon. The ‘nation of Islam' is constantly attempting to CHANGE the rest of the world. And Islamic nationalists are targeting the ‘West’ most in particular. I believe that much of the reason for this is because that is the most free and prosperous portion of the world. And capitalism is most if not all of the reason for this prosperity)

Pakistan

2011-12-14T05:47:00.000-08:00

Pakistan is continuing to deny NATO transit of Pakistani territory to supply troops in Afghanistan. In addition, Pakistan is establishing a working relationship with the Taliban, a relationship begun before the Taiban takeover of Afghanistan in the late 1990’s. I am unable to confirm a report that Pakistan has released 130 Taliban prisoners recently. But we are getting conflicting reports of Pakistani cooperation with the Taliban AND Pakistani willingness to talk with NATO. No matter which way Pakistan eventually wants to go, it would make sense to calm NATO down by offering to talk. And with the U.S. and NATO drawdown in Afghanistan, Pakistan could easily shift back to its old self with desires to influence and control elements within Afghanistan.

I am also hearing that the U.S. draw down in Afghanistan is not just on schedule. The U.S. is considering a more rapid withdrawal in light of the supposedly stabilizing security situation in Afghanistan. This would fit my assessment that President Obama wanted to be out of both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the election cycle of 2012. Well, so far he will meet the requirement of being out of Iraq and although not out of Afghanistan, the drawdown of the ‘surge’ troops will be completed by the end of this year with an accelerated schedule of withdrawal for 2012. This will only lead to a shift in the war that our enemies are waging against us.

We can expect a more aggressive stance by our enemies in Afghanistan as a direct result. The way the war is going with our withdrawal from Iran, we can expect more aggression throughout the world as our enemies re-deploy and expand their capabilities. The energy, manpower and material resources that were being burned up attacking our military will now be available for other activities. It would make sense that the overall level of violence throughout Iran and Afghanistan would fall. The targets now being hit will be on a more personal level, combined with political activity to consolidate the gains. At the same time, a massive drop in attrition due to less combat against our military will enable our enemies to expand their capabilities elsewhere. I would expect a fairly quiet period with relatively few major attacks of between one and three years in duration. After that, we can expect a return to the accelerated pace of attacks that we were seeing in the late 1990’s with an increase in the effectiveness of these attacks as our enemies escalate the war. This is another of wars bad habits, the way that you win is to escalate the war until your enemy is unable to continue. This is a major reason as to why wars have a habit of going out of control.

Health Care exemption for Islam

2011-12-10T05:17:00.000-08:00

This may be old news, but it is important. Our Health Care bill that was passed in order for US to find out what is in it contains exemptions for ‘religions’. Those who follow beliefs that are in contradiction to the mandated payments of the Health Care bill are exempted from making such payments. This has been used before.

The Amish have been exempted from mandates in the past. Conscription is the largest issue that comes to mind. I believe for good reason. The problem here is that the one size does not fit all applies again. A number of other ‘religions’ are also exempted including Islam. I really don’t have a problem with the ‘other’ exemptions, but I do with Islam. I must admit, Islam is an exceptional ‘religion’.

Unlike the Amish, (I will use the Amish as the example for comparison) Muslims are attempting to install their religious laws into our governmental systems. Also unlike the Amish, Islam is fielding an army to project its sovereignty. Nowhere do I hear about the Amish defending ‘occupied’ land. Actually, the population of the Amish is so small that they would be overrun in short order if they attempted any such thing. The followers of Islam have a population that is many times the greater of our entire country. And Islamic nationalism is just as real to them as the government of Japan, or France or the United States. In fact, even more so as the ‘religion’ of Mohammed does not recognize ANY modern national government. (Including those host governments where Islamic law is the basis for that legal system) At least the Amish recognizes the government and authority of the United States. And this is where violence is the result.

Islamic nationalism IS the root cause of the violent conflict. If you look around the world, Islamic law is causing violent confrontation in ALL areas, including those places where Islamic law is the base for the laws of the land. Islamic law is malignant. Just look at what implementation of Islamic law is doing in Europe and specifically, England. This process is not as advanced in the United States, but we are seeing the beginnings. Only one example is Judge Charles in New Jersey. He was overruled, but that very ruling has spawned numerous states to attempt to prohibit the implementation of Islamic law. And this reaction is for good reason. The Constitution is the supreme law of our land. Islamic law does not recognize our legal system. It works to overthrow it. This will start a war EVERY time. As it should.

Tolerance of ‘religious’ belief is an important concept in our legal system. We have no trouble with a ‘religion’ that requires a believer to pray 5 times a day, or to travel to its holy sites, or to fast. These are individual choices that are protected by our legal system. We DO have a conflict when that same ‘religion’ is imposing its governmental system upon others and at the same time is fielding an army to spread and protect its sovereignty. It is against Islamic law to pay insurance. That is just too bad. It is against Catholic law to have an abortion, yet that IS the law in the United States. And the Catholic Church is NOT fielding an army to impose its hostility to abortion upon our government and people. And this is the difference between Islam and all other ‘religions’. It is no coincidence that violent conflict is most prevalent in areas where Islam is contesting the authority of the government when attempting to impose Islamic law over that of the existing national government. And this is precisely what Islam is attempting to do here in the United States. Islam is at war against our government, our legal system and us. I am against the Health Care law anyway, but to allow exemption for Muslims in our legal system is aiding our enemy.

Enron and our government

2011-12-07T04:09:00.000-08:00

I read the following article in the Chicago Tribune dated Sunday, December 4, 2011.

“Mistakes of Enron keep repeating.”

The author, Paul Rosenthal is blasting the corporate culture that created the Enron disaster. And he is seeing this same problem in other companies today. The basic accounting problem of hiding debt in order to borrow more to the point that debt caused a rapid collapse. This all sounds familiar to me.

Is not our Federal government facing the same problem? Are not our state governments also dealing with a massive debt problem? How about our city governments like Detroit who is threatened with takeover by the state of Michigan? And let’s not talk about the local governments and counties. This problem is much more widespread than our corporate executives.

Our entire society has been going this way for decades. My father told me back in the 1980’s that when he was a young man, you shook hands and your word was good. Even if the deal turned out to be a mistake, you went ahead with it unless the other party agreed. I read an article in Time magazine around the same time (Mid 1980’s) that said in the culture in American today, it was acceptable to lie if it was to your advantage. You know, about that used car you are selling with the bad brakes or transmission.

I only lend any of my property out to certain people. Others just do not take the time or effort to return what I have lent them. I myself go way out of my way to return others property, but this is not a two way street. I had an acquaintance who I approached to borrow something. He refused, but I told him that if anything happened, I would buy him a new one. He was surprised and asked me: Really? So he lent it to me (I guess he knew my word was good) I returned it intact. If anything had happened, I WOULD have replaced it with a new one. Our society is not generally like this anymore.

It makes sense that we see this in our company leadership as well as our government. After all, our leadership is only what we are. We elect others who are like us.

What surprised me about the article was how he did not even mention the massive debt our local, city, state and Federal governments have. I guess the author’s focus is corporations. What is concerning is that our government debt is Enron multiplied many, many times over. And we have not hit the wall yet. And just like Enron, when we do, it will come quick and fast.

The war agaist Islamic nationalism: An overview

2011-12-03T05:10:00.000-08:00

So far, the war on terror is a classic guerrilla war. Irregular troops are pitted against civil authorities and the military of various countries. If you listen to what the terrorist organizations are saying, it becomes apparent that the motivations for terrorist actions are based upon Islamic doctrine and culture. The wild card here is the repeated suicide attacks. This is only the 2nd time in all of recorded history that this phenomenon has been seen. The 1st occurrence had its basis in the culture of Bushido. This prior occurrence was eventually defeated through massive violence. The entire political, educational and economic systems of the area that produced these attackers were changed completely. It is unlikely that this type of change will occur in the areas that are producing the current crop of suicide attackers.

The widespread occurrence of this phenomenon indicates that the population that is supplying these attackers is so large that it is most likely to continue into the indefinite future unless some cataclysmic event occurs. The population that is supplying these attackers is so large that it would take World War III for this event to take place. The eventual spread of weapons of mass destruction makes the likelihood of another world war almost inevitable. Warfare is a basic part of human nature. As technology increases, our ability to kill each other is enhanced. As a result, our wars are becoming more and more destructive.
How do we prevent the next BIG war?

I like to use the analogy of earthquakes. If you keep having small ones, you are probably OK. Once you notice that it has been some time since the last one, WATCH OUT. This is because the pressure is not being released, and a build up occurs. Human nature is not so precise, however it does not change. It has been more than 4 generations since the last world war. People forget what it is like. They forget how it happened, and how it could have been prevented. Although history can never repeat itself exactly, patterns do emerge. Warfare is a part of us, despite the fact that most people do not want it to occur. The issues that trigger war many times cannot be resolved except through warfare. Slavery in the United States is one obvious example. No political solution was available to end slavery. This is a common feature with most wars. The issues that are underlying the current war on terror today likewise will not be resolved without violence. Attempting to stall the resolution or preventing the violence that it triggers just may end up making the overall effect much larger than it already is. The fact that so many people are involved in these issues already can be an indicator of just how large this war can eventually become.

Pakistan

2011-11-30T04:44:00.001-08:00

It looks like Pakistan is acting up again. This is no surprise as Pakistan has been fighting Islamic nationalists for decades. I believe that Pakistan is losing and the moves to block supply of NATO forces in Afghanistan are just the latest moves.

Pakistan was behind the Taliban obtaining power in Afghanistan back in the late 1990’s. I believe that the Pakistani government began to work with the U.S., as President Musharraf was a good ally. Now that he is gone, I believe that Pakistan is beginning to swing back to its old ways. Not that it was fully in our camp, but the while the decision maker was Musharraf, the Pakistan military was helping the U.S. more than it was working against us. I believe this to be a different case today.

Remember how Turkey pulled its authorization for the U.S. to base our troops out of Turkey just 48 hours before our assault on Iraq? Even though Turkey is a different situation, Pakistan can easily turn out to be worse. It will not be known for certain for many years, but this can be a situation where our divisive President has made an uncertain ally into a definitive enemy.

President Obama is a divider. Part II

2011-11-26T04:04:00.000-08:00

I have never seen my country so badly divided. I am counting Vietnam. At least during that time, the political division was basically within the Democrat party. We are seeing division along numerous lines today. Political in Democrat and Republican (Worse than I have seen) Race seems to be an issue. (Herman Cain was particularly obvious) We have rich and poor with the ‘Rich’ not ‘paying their fair share’. Now I am a ‘rich’ bastard who needs to have my money ‘invested’ by our President and the ‘ruling’ party into whatever THEY feel is a good place to put national resources. The fact that what I have saved and invested and built for MY family is one of the core of my beliefs. I gave up many things growing up so that I could provide better for a family that I have wanted since high school. I remember not going skiing (In the 1970’s it cost about $50.00 to go for a day) so that I could save and invest for my future family. I feel that this makes me American more than most other things. I have had my share of luck, but I gave up a great deal in order to obtain what I have. And now this means that I am not ‘paying my fair share’? So now I am the bad guy because I want to save and hold on to what I have for my family and myself? I am now part of the problem, in more than one way.

Instead of wanting to ‘reach across the aisle’ like I desperately wanted to with President Carter and President Clinton, I want NO DEALS with President Obama. I am digging in. During the last 3 years, it is calculated that the United States government has obtained control of close to 50% of the private sector of our economy. (This is counting the effects of Health Care, the bailouts of the banks and auto industry by obtaining controlling interests in those companies.) This is decidedly NOT American in concept. Our country was founded upon principals the OPPOSITE of this. That individuals (Myself and others) and private organizations will allocate the resources of our country better and more effectively than our government. And our government is doing this so that WE can find out how well it works. President Obama is now right. I AM now a problem.

Remember what President Obama said about the police after his friend at Harvard had been hassled? “I don’t know all the facts, but the police acted stupidly.” If he did not know the facts, how could he possibly know if ANYONE acted wisely or not? This incident is unimportant when taken in the context of political events that are driving our country. However, this incident tells me about the man who was supposed to ‘work with the other side’ WITHOUT preconditions. And this is what was showing as bright as day on Monday when President Obama complained that the Republicans in Congress were not doing their jobs. This was his view as to why the “super committee” was failing to reach any kind of a deal. President Obama is once again right. I am now a problem because I don’t want ANY law with his signature that does ANYTHING except what I want it to. I want no compromise at all. I don’t care if he likes it or not. He can find out what it does AFTER it becomes law. Now we see eye to eye.

President Obama has made me into a real enemy. As an American, I have been and was still willing to suffer under Democrat Presidents and make deals so that OUR country can move forward. No longer do I feel this way. Now I am insisting that no deals be made so that MY country does not have to undo ANYTHING that he does. We can move forward AFTER he is GONE. If this is not divided, I do not know what is. Once again, President Obama is correct. I am NOW a part of why nothing can be done. In the past, I have been opposed to Democrat policy. I considered myself a Republican version of President Clinton. I would not like it, but I would work with Democrats to move forward. Today, I refuse to cooperate at all. This is real CHANGE. We are getting exactly what we voted for. Now all we can do is HOPE that his administration becomes history and we can undo the damage that has been done. This is division, not ‘reaching across the aisle’ and working together.

President Obama is a divider

2011-11-23T05:41:00.000-08:00

Hope and CHANGE was a driving force behind President Obama’s election. He was going to ‘reach across the aisle’ and get us working together. This concept was going to make the entire world better as he was going to ‘reach out’ to our enemies and talk with them without any pre-conditions.

I am a political conservative. So, naturally I am going to disagree with a Democrat who is President. I have a history of doing so. I barely remember President Johnston, so I won’t go into him. I do remember having serious disagreements with President Carter. (I voted for the other guy) However, he made it clear right from the beginning that he was driven by compassion. His motive was to help and I could see this whenever he made a public appearance. I may have disagreed with him on how he was going to do what he wanted to, but I could not doubt his sincerity.

President Clinton was of a different cloth. I also disagreed with him, but I could see him ‘reaching across the aisle’ on domestic issues. He made deals that I did not like, but I could see where my views were being taken into account. I did not like his foreign policy, nor did I like him. However, I had to respect that he became moderate after the elections in 1994. He moved toward the center even though I know that he did not want to.

President Obama is nothing like those two. He may be driven by compassion like President Carter, but I can’t see it. During the campaigning, he came across as if he was going to be a moderate. He spoke like one, and he kept talking about how he was going to ‘work with everyone’. He is not only not doing this, but he is blaming me for my not ‘reaching out’ to him.

It began with President Obama sending back the bust of Winston Churchill. No better example of two countries cooperation exists than between England and the U.S. in all of recorded history. Then President Obama is ticked off when he is not invited to the royal wedding some time later. OK, this is not a real important issue, although it does tell me about how England is not held as a strong ally in President Obama’s mind.

“We need to pass this bill so that you can find out what is in it.” This one really gets me. The Health Care debate was raging with all the fever that Social Security had brought out the two times major reform had been attempted. And with at least the same intensity that Health Care reform had brought out under President Clinton. And it was passed anyway. So that WE can find out what is in it. So much for consideration of OTHER points of view. At this point, I began to look for excuses to conflict with President Obama and the Democrats.

A number of other things came along, but the most recent was the talk that President Obama gave the other night. He was blaming the Republicans for not working with him on the ‘super committee’. With his track record, I had been surprised that they had even raised the debt limit with this deal. I had already decided to dig in, but our leadership decided to cut a deal. Naturally, it did not work. President Obama said the other night how Democrats were being flexible and the Republicans were not. It was Congress who was not giving in at all. Yet only a sentence or two later, he said that any bill passed by them that does not take into account raising revenue (Taxes) he was going to say ‘NO’. Where is the no preconditions President that we elected? Where is their room to make a deal? Does not negotiation begin with a statement of your position and then working it out? OK, President Obama was staking out his position. BEFORE ‘reaching across the aisle’. Not exactly what he claimed that he would be doing. And this has been his pattern since taking office. This is not making allies, nor is it working together. This makes enemies.

Iran is NOT going to stop waging war against us.

2011-11-19T06:39:00.000-08:00

With Iran on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, we can expect more overt attacks upon Israel and the United States. I believe this for many reasons, but one big reason is that the government of Iran is based upon Islamic ideology.

I ran into the following comment on a site connected to Atlas Shrugs. This comment is a good indication of only one of the problems that we face when dealing with our Islamic enemy today:

"You Americans are childish, silly and histrionic. A lot like women, actually.
When my woman gets out of line, I beat her down.
Serves her right."

I replied:

I must admit, we can be childish and VERY silly.
We do love life. Unlike Islam, who an Islamic leader says: “We love death.”
I must quote an old saying: Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The put down of women is traditional Islam. Not enough of our population appears to understand this, YET. As the rise in anti-Islamic attitudes in this country indicates, we are learning. (Too slowly for my comfort)

The attitude quoted above appears to forget that we Americans can wage war with the BEST. And this war has yet to really begin. It is not generally known that the repeated suicide attackers of today are only the 2nd occurrence in all of recorded history.

The first time was Japan in the 1940's. And the US killed 'innocent' civilians intentionally. By the millions. (By the way, my wife is Japanese.)

THAT IS THE AMERICAN WAY.

Maybe we are not like this today. Are you certain that you want to find out?

Iran is NOT going to stop waging warfare against us. They have not even begun.

Mossad behind death of key member of Iranian missile program?

2011-11-15T05:31:00.000-08:00

I pulled this from rt-com/news on 11/14/11

“A key figure in Iran’s missile program has been killed in an explosion at a Revolutionary Guard base in the country. Some reports suggest that the blast which killed Brigade General Hassan Moghaddam and 16 others may have been an act of sabotage.
General Moghaddam was a senior officer involved in developing new long-range ballistic missile designs, and Tehran says many of its missile program’s successes were due to his special skill and expertise.
He and 16 others were killed on Saturday when a shipment of artillery shells detonated at a military site some 25 kilometers west of Tehran. The blast also left 16 people wounded.
US-based radical left-wing commentator Richard Silverstein, who is reputed to have contacts in the Israeli military, said in his blog that he was told the explosion was the work of Mossad. His source said Israeli intelligence had been working with an exile group, the People's Mojaheddin of Iran.”

This is possible. After all, Israel has the most to lose if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and the missile systems to deliver them. Mossad has performed this type of operation before, and this type of move would not be beyond Israeli capability. I would like to point out that this is not as if Iran does not have it coming to them.

The recent plot to assassinate the ambassador of Saudi Arabia was an act of war and although it was not directed at Israel, the implications of a successful assassination would have been detrimental to Israel. Not to mention that Iran has been and still is behind plenty of attacks upon Israeli interests. You know what they say about payback.

Iran

2011-11-12T05:22:00.001-08:00

I have been reading all sorts of stuff about the threat that Iran poses to the United States and Israel today. On the other hand, I am also reading all sorts of stuff about how Iran is NOT a threat to world peace today, and will be even less so if they obtain nuclear weapons. This point of view of Iran not being a threat misses the point of Iran’s history of exporting violence since the current government obtained power in 1979.

Iran began by committing an act of war against the U.S. by seizing our embassy in Tehran in the fall of that first year. Iran has been meddling in neighboring countries internal affairs since then. For decades now, Iran has been supporting armed Islamic groups throughout the region. Iran has been working closely with Syria in this same effort. Iran was and still is involved heavily in Iraq and was directly aiding our enemies there. Iran basically has been waging covert warfare against the U.S. and Israel since 1979. To believe that Iran is not a threat in anyway to United States interests in the Middle East is ridiculous. On the other hand, to believe that Iran will attack the United States with nuclear weapons after they were able to obtain them is to ignore Iran’s history of covert warfare. And Iran is no pushover.

Iraq was a piece of cake compared with a potential conventional war against Iran. Iraq is predominately desert. Desert is the most ideal terrain on earth (Except the oceans) for mechanized warfare. This is the type of war that the U.S. military excels at. The terrain of Iran is vastly different from Iraq: A rugged, mountainous rim; A high, central basin with desert and mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts. Mountain terrain is the worst environment in the world for a conventional force to engage in battle. The population of Iran is more than 3 times that of Iraq. These factors would demand a great deal more troops to be used in subduing Iran than Iraq. Today, the U.S. just does not have the armed troops that would be required to do the job well. We DO have the manpower. The problem is that they are in civilian clothes.

Without massive outside assistance, the U.S. would have to begin the draft in order to obtain the troop levels required to subdue Iran. Even then, this would require time. In order to expand the army this much, we would have to withdraw many experienced officers from active units to serve as cadres for the new units being formed. A large expansion would hurt many existing units’ abilities. The experienced men would help teach the new personnel their jobs in the newly forming units. These new units would take months to form and even longer to reach the level where they are ready to be committed to combat. It can take up to a full year to form a new combat ready division from scratch. In other words, Iran is already somewhat safe from a direct invasion from the U.S. military. It can be done, but it would take far more political will than any war in recent memory. If this is the case, why does Iran need nuclear weapons?

Iran would not need to deploy any nuclear weapons once they obtain them. What Iran will be enabled to do is step up it’s overt activities against us. The recent plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States is a good example. Assassination of an ambassador on U.S. soil IS an overt act of war. Even if Iran had pulled it off, would it have been worth waging war over? What if Iran has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them? If war would be a very expensive price to pay for the assassination of an ambassador, just think about how much more expensive NUCLEAR warfare would be. In other words, Iran can become much more aggressive with any action they take with the knowledge that it is not worth waging nuclear warfare as a result of any serious reaction. Of course, Iran will have limits. For example, Iran would be foolish to launch a bunch of nuclear weapons from it’s own territory at Israel or U.S. allies. But Iran would be enabled to be much more overt about it’s activities in this war that it is already engaged in. This is where the threat index is much higher than if Iran is unable to develop or obtain nuclear weapons.

* Note: I have left out the possibility that Iran could supply some Islamic group with nuclear capability that could be deployed where Iran could deny it’s own involvement. This possibility alone raises the threat simply because it is more likely than a direct nuclear attack from Iranian territory. This is to say nothing about the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Part II: The internal threat to the United States

2011-11-09T07:53:00.000-08:00

Part II Internal threat to the United States: Financial

With a rise in debt comes a corresponding rise in the interest that becomes due on that same debt. Once you reach a certain level, just paying the interest becomes a real problem. At that point attempting to reduce the level of debt to lower the interest becomes almost impossible without draconian measures. This has happened to countries in the past and is happening in Greece today.

One serious problem we in the United States face today is the skyrocketing costs of government programs and pensions. This problem is fixable and IF dealt with properly, would go a long way toward reducing the pressure on the need for borrowed money.

Another problem we face is the takeover of the productive areas of the economy (Private ownership) by government. The Health Care system (Including private health care insurance) is a classic example. As a larger percentage of the economy becomes government run, we can expect a less efficient allocation of national resources with a corresponding drop in standard of living for the average American. What is more important, as government takes over more of the economy, the ability to pay for government programs and pensions become weaker. This can only make the debt that much larger with a corresponding rise in interest payments. So why is this a threat to the United States?

Just look at Greece. How stable is the government of Greece today? Look at the violence and unrest that is occurring in Greece today that is a result of attempts to get the debt and spending under control. Please try
to tell me that this cannot happen here. What is far more troubling is that Greece is a relatively small economy. The economy of all of Europe is also in a similar situation, although Greece is the most vulnerable. The United States is one of the largest economies in the world. We are not as far along in debt as Greece. We do have the advantage of the fact that the U.S. economy is much, much larger. Americans are human just as much as everyone else. Given a similar situation, we would see similar reactions in this country as we are witnessing in Greece today. If we allow what is happening to Greece happen to us, we would also impact the entire world in a very negative way.

This threat is not just to the United States. I am a firm believer that many conflicts and wars are caused by conflict over scarce resources. I believe that it was no coincidence that the greatest war in mankind’s history (World War II) was immediately preceded by the greatest economic downturn in mankind’s history. (The Great Depression) If we do not get the debt and spending under control, we can become (either directly or indirectly) the cause of the next Great War. By we, I am speaking of the United States AND Europe’s economic (debt) problems.

Two major threats to the United States today

2011-11-06T07:07:00.000-08:00

One is an external threat and the other an internal threat.

Part I External: Islamic sovereignty and nationalism.

Islamic sovereignty and nationalism is not just a threat to the United States, but to the entire world. I will deal mainly with the United States, but this applies to ALL nation states of the world.

Islam represents a real danger to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. legal system and culture. The term “radical” or “extremist” Muslim is misleading. To our eyes, a “radical” or “extremist” is a very small percentage of our population. It is implied that this is true within Muslim countries. The problem is that what we consider to be “Radical or extremist” views are prevalent throughout the Muslim world. I am not referring to violence although violence is frequently a byproduct. I refer to Islamic rule and governance. Islam is not just a religion, nor can Islam be considered a ‘moderate’ legal system. The majority of Muslims from Islamic countries believe in the legal system and culture they come from. (As do most people) One basic problem that I have is that these common beliefs are not moderate by our standards.

Please note how in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia the new legal systems that are being set up will be based upon Sharia law. Sharia law is one of the most if not, THE most totalitarian system on earth. Just look at how well it works: ALL of the Middle Eastern governments (Exception: Israel) have legal systems based upon Islamic law to some degree. And just look at how much friction is resulting from contact with Israel and the countries outside the Middle East. At the same time, this Islamic ‘legal’ system is being implemented in various degrees in England, the rest of Europe and the United States. (As well as other countries) What is generally not understood about Sharia is that in addition to being a legal system, Sharia is designed to be integrated with its own foreign policy and economic policy. In other words, it is a national government in and of itself. Sharia law can be implemented in parts. However, the system is designed to expand and eventually take control of all aspects of life in a way that is more dominate and authoritarian than just about any other government the world has ever seen. And this system is hostile to all other national governments, including those who host Islamic laws in a partial state. I have written an eight part series on how Islam is the cause of open warfare. Just to sum this up I have listed the issues below:

Islam and Blasphemy
The penalty for leaving Islam is death
Jihad
Islamic electoral policy of “One man (men only) one vote, once”
Kill the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land
Tribute or ‘poll tax’ is the payments that non-Muslims make to Islamic authorities. Payment of this ‘tax’ exempts the payer from military service.
Stoning people to death
The house of war
Separation of church and state
‘Honor’ killing

And this culture is spreading through the implementation of Islamic law. Just look at Europe. England is of particular concern as Islamic courts have been set up with the idea that where Islamic law conflicts with English law, the English law is supposed to be priority. What is happening is that enclaves of Islamic areas are beginning to develop and grow. Don’t think so? Just look at parts of Minnesota. Just look at Judge Charles in New Jersey. Even though he was overruled, it took a higher court to end the B.S. Our legal system has already been penetrated to the lower level. All that needs to happen is to have this ‘legal system’ go further up to the next higher level. It can only be a mater of time before a higher court ruling will allow you to take your wife against her wishes. And this is only a beginning. If this is not a threat to our legal system, I do not know what is.

Islam and blasphemy

2011-10-29T05:22:00.000-07:00

I pulled this definition from Wikipedia:

“Blasphemy in Islam is any irreverent behavior[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs that Muslims revere. The Quran and the hadith do not speak about blasphemy.[2] Jurists created the offence, and they made it part of Sharia.[2] Where Sharia pertains, the penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading.[3][4] Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwā.”

In other words, the death penalty is possible for this offense. And please note how Imams are the enforcement. This is one of the ways that Imams obtain power. Muqtada al-Sadr is a classic example of Imams wielding the power of a sovereign nation. He formed his own ‘army’ and is today a powerful figure in Iraq. Yet at the same time, he holds no political office.

Wikipedia goes on in its definition of Islamic blasphemy:

“The punishments for different instances of blasphemy in Islam vary by jurisdiction.[2][84][85] A convicted blasphemer may, among other penalties, lose all legal rights. The loss of rights may cause a blasphemer's marriage to be dissolved, religious acts to be rendered worthless, and claims to property—including any inheritance—to be rendered void. Repentance may restore lost rights except for marital rights; lost marital rights are regained only by remarriage. Women have blasphemed and repented to end a marriage. Women may be permitted to repent, and may receive a lesser punishment than would befall a man who committed the same offense.”

Criticism of anything Islamic can easily (And frequently is) considered blasphemy. Just look at the potential power that this represents. That women can use this to end their marriage is only a relatively minor point. Blasphemy is one of the tools that Islam uses to subvert other legal system and cultures. Just look at the example of Judge Charles in New Jersey in 2009. This is where the war and violence enters the picture. Blasphemy of Islam is one of the causes of war and violence. Enforcement of Islamic blasphemy law IS enforcement of Islamic Sovereignty and one of the roots of Islamic nationalism.

Venture capital

2011-10-26T06:01:00.000-07:00

Once again, I would like to thank those who contribute to this site with comments. It helps to stimulate my thinking and gives me material to write about.

An Anonymous poster made the following comment on my Solyndra posting.

“Why did private equity firms put 1 Billion dollars into a loser then? The government had less that 1/3 overall in Solyndra and private venture capitalist had the rest. Why is that a failure of the government and not the private sector?

Can't have more nuclear power - looky here: https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45
The top two are both nuclear related. By far the largest is the 8.1 Billion plant being supported by loans in the state of Georgia.

Solyndra was a mistake, but plenty of private sector firms got it wrong as well. In addition, the private sector firms doubled down about half way through the process.”

Venture capital is a risky business. This risk is acceptable to those who invest. This is their choice. Some people are willing to take much more risk than others. I do not consider myself to be one of those, but I HAVE put up venture capital on occasion. Have you? I’ll bet that President Obama has NEVER done so with his OWN money. Yet he is willing to do it with our money. I can find lots of places to invest venture capital with YOUR money. This is why it is a failure of government.

My nuclear power comment was a little misleading. Sorry. I was referring to the fact that NO new nuclear reactor permits had been issued in the United States between 1980 and 2001. This was because our government would not allow new ones to be built at all, no matter who paid for them. The situation had not improved much since 9/11 and certainly is not better since President Obama was elected. Personally, I believe that government should not be investing our money into nuclear power either. Regulation is not capital investment. Regulations inhibiting nuclear plant construction and development are so overbearing that they have the effect of crippling growth and development by raising costs to unmanageable levels that discourage all who would put up the capital investment.

Solyndra

2011-10-22T06:33:00.000-07:00

Naturally, those who favor solar power leave out the environmental implications of the used solar panels and equipment. Like the advocates of electric cars forget about the batteries that are used up. The acids are quite poisonous. And the volume needed to run a significant amount of cars would create a massive waste problem. These two ‘solutions’ can only be supplementary and temporary stopgaps.

What is important to understand is that solar power is at the end of a very long chain. The earth is literally millions of miles away from the source. The source of that power is the sun, which is a very large fusion reaction. The earth is so far away from the sun and what is collected from ALL solar panels is an infinitesimal speck of the power released. We need the technology to tap the fusion reaction itself and we would then have what to our technological level would be an unlimited power source. To do that, we would need more nuclear reactors and technology. Can't have that. So we have Solyndra.

Solyndra is a classic example as to why capitalism works and a socialistic, centrally planned economy does not. Our government poured money into an economic failure long after it was well known that it was not working. This example was prevalent throughout the Soviet Union for decades. It occurred in all sectors of their economy. We all know how well that economy worked. It was estimated that 40% of the entire economy of the old Soviet Union was the black market. This was because the system could not provide legally what the population needed. I am certain that China also suffers from this malady as well, it is just not as obvious at least partially because China has embraced some limited parts of a capitalist system.

Retraction

2011-10-20T07:46:00.001-07:00

I have been unable to verify any of the information in my previous post. I had made the mistake of not checking into the sources prior to post time. What does concern me here is that although what is in there is most likely false, the actions of our current President have made them plausible to someone like me.

What I do know is that we have the most un-American President to ever occupy the oval office. You can’t convince me that President Obama is a capitalist. In fact, he is quite the opposite. Capitalism is the driving force as to why America has been exceptional. We are no different from anyone else, excepting our historical belief that people will make a better life for themselves and the rest of society if they are allowed to own the methods of production and benefit from any efforts that they make to improve that production.

President Obama does not believe in this most FUNDAMENTAL American concept. He believes that “Profit” is taking advantage of others. People who have become “RICH” as a result of these efforts are not to be commended, but to have their ‘fair share’ taken from them. This is not exactly an American concept. This ideology is responsible as to why America has been the source of many of the worlds’ problems today. This is why the “apology tour” has been one of his policies.

All of this does not excuse me from my skipping a basic journalist requirement: Check your sources. (I am not a journalist. However, a historian needs to be certain the facts are as accurate as can be reasonably expected)

President Obama and the U.S. flag

2011-10-19T05:58:00.000-07:00

I received this via e-mail recently. This is no surprise, but I do believe it to be revealing.

The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised "Meet The Press."
From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008, 11:48:04 EST, Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag. General Bill Ginn, USAF (ret.), asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...
During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention, facing the flag, with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It".

"Senator" Obama replied:
"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides...." "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression...." "The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air, and all that sort of thing."

Obama continued:, "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as "redesign" our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ....."

"When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts . We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice, which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag, and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past."

"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America."

He is certainly accomplishing his goals.

Jay Carney

2011-10-15T05:19:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, October 12th I watched Jay Carney speaking about the plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador. He called it an act of terrorism. He also said that he is calling it what it was. I believe that he was referring to NOT calling it an act of war. So he as spokesman for President Obama is not going to call this plot that can be traced back to Iran, an act of war.

So an assassination of an ambassador is NOT an act of war? I must say that I define acts of war a little differently than our president. The embassies around the world are supposed to be the property and land of the owning country. So are the ambassadors. So what does it take to commit an act of war? Killing some of our soldiers? Attacking a general? Would the assassination of the head of SAC meet the qualifications? Maybe it would take a nuclear attack upon one of our cities, but that could also be an act of terrorism. And it would not be an act of war? I am making a jump here, but I do not believe it to be all that much of a leap, given the extreme views and ideology of the President of MY country. What the hell will we ever FIGHT wars for under this President’s leadership? We are sending a few hundred soldiers to Uganda to help with the situation there. What the hell is going on? Just days after an enemy has committed an act of war against us and we are reacting by sending soldiers to a different country on a different continent. Maybe President Obama sees a connection here, but I do not.

Plot to kill Saudi Ambassador

2011-10-12T04:33:00.000-07:00

A plot was exposed yesterday that connected Iran to an assassination attempt on the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. A problem here is that we lose either way.

If this is just made up by the administration to bring pressure off of other issues, we are in big trouble because of the level of deceit required. Frankly, I can see President Obama going for something like this, but I doubt that this is it.

More likely this is true, but what does that say about our position? President Obama sure needed to go public in order to help his political position. Desperate situations call for desperate measures and President Obama’s political position IS desperate. Are we winning the war because we continue to play good defense? Or are we losing because the war is coming closer to home? Now that combat is low in Iraq and Afghanistan is winding down, we are not inflicting anywhere near the losses on our enemy’s ‘army’ as we have in the past. (I use the term ‘army’ loosely because I am referring to Islamic nationalists. This is the one unifying ideology that binds all of the Islamic terrorist groups.) Fighting a regular army is very expensive in human capital, but it also expends tremendous resources such as supply and finances. We are not draining our enemy capabilities today like we were just a few years ago.

Our frisky enemies are beginning to re-deploy. I am certain that Iraq and Afghanistan will continue a certain level of enemy activity, but we can expect more activity throughout the rest of the world. Even if not pulled off, this plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. is an act of war. They must be feeling pretty confident if they are willing to attempt something this bold. Iran is beginning to flex its muscles a little. I doubt our response will be anywhere near firm enough to begin to make Iran hesitant in whatever it is doing.

Unions

2011-10-08T05:30:00.000-07:00

Last month, a group of Health Care workers in California went on strike. In order to meet the needs of the customers, the provider brought in 500 temporary workers. Unfortunately, one of these workers gave a woman a lethal dose by accident. That worker undoubtedly will punish him/her self for as long as he/she lives. This is the greatest fear of all health care providers. (One of my sisters is a nurse) This issue is not about pay. It is not about having more vacation time. Unions are very good at issues of pay and benefits for workers. As this incident demonstrates, quality of work is not at the top of the union priority list.

This incident brings up a question. Should temps have been brought in at all? Or should the providers even be allowed to walk out on their job like that? I suppose that allowing non-essential personnel the right to walk off the job may be a compromise, but who is to say a person is non-essential?

Another question is do we really want government run health care? After all, this type of incident would become much more common. Don’t think so? OK, lets see what the fall out from this is. The Heath Care provider (A private company) is liable and the relatives can easily (And probably will) sue for compensation. As they are probably entitled. Compare this with attempting to sue the Federal government. If you have any question as to how well that would work, go to Canada or England to see how well mistakes are handled. You should not have to look all that hard.

We have teachers call in sick in Wisconsin in order to travel to Madison so that they can protest about the governors’ policies. Yet that same organization talks about how important it is for students to not skip school. I guess that getting better pay and benefits are more important than doing one of the most important jobs in the country. OK, one day is not a big deal. Schools already have a ton of days off without counting the summer. On top of this, you should hear the president of the teachers union talking about the ‘ruling class’ and how important it is to fight them. “If teacher unions want to be strong and well supported, it is essential that they not only be teacher unionists, but teachers of unionism. We need to create a generation of students who support teachers and the movement for workers rights, oppressed peoples’ rights. That’s our responsibility.” Ruling class? Oppressed people? Sounds like class warfare. And also sounds Communist or Marxist to me. Not exactly the ideas that American was founded upon.

OK, I am against unions in general anyway. This is only a couple of examples of where I feel that unions are not good. I have an idea: Let’s unionize the military. Just think about how much better off we will all be if our soldiers have the ‘right’ to not go off and fight the dumb wars that our political leaders foolishly get us into. We could save so much money that we could afford to pay them all much more than what we pay them today. Talk about stupidity.

Unions may have had their purpose in the past. My personal experience has been as negative as the examples that I have talked about here. (The two times that I have worked in unions, I did not have a choice) I don’t work in a union, I don’t want to ever work in a union again and I certainly don’t want union ideology taught to my children.

Religion IS a factor in terrorism

2011-10-05T06:18:00.000-07:00

I pulled this from the Daily Herald dated 9/30/11. It really says it all. (Posted 10/5/11)

Yes, religion is a factor in terrorism

This is in response to a Fence Post letter by Aabeda Masra on Sept. 24 in which the writer said not to blame religion for acts of terror. The letter stated that what happened on 9/11 and for all acts of terror are “motivated by political goals and religion should not be blamed nor should it even come into the picture”. I have to strongly disagree with that.

I know that there’s the whole “being PC” about this, but the facts are that all 19 hijackers on those four planes that day were Muslim. Fifteen of the men were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. They were not going for any political goals when they plotted 9/11; they hated America, Americans, and our way of life because we don’t all follow their religion and live by their beliefs.

Yes, they were extremists and I know not all Muslims feel as these terrorists do, but don’t tell me that their religion didn’t influence them to do what they did. It was even said by their leader Osama bin Laden that it was a “holy war” against the United States and the final words each of them were shouting as they slammed the planes into our buildings were calls to praise Allah.

I don’t see how much clearer it can be that what happened on that day and all the other terrorist attacks that have happened since the 1970s have all been based on religion and how they felt they were serving their god.

Shawn Killackey
Mundelein

Read more: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110930/discuss/709309945/#ixzz1ZlL8etRc

A comment was then made that all religions have their ‘dark side’. True enough, but a significant difference emerges when you look at those in the ‘West’ who bomb abortion clinics and Islamic terrorism. The KKK does not field combat units nor does it have artillery to support it’s operations. To compare these extremes as being equally significant is to view the comparison so narrowly as to make that view extreme.

Class warfare

2011-10-01T05:31:00.000-07:00

One of the Reasons that the Roman government and Roman civilization lasted so long was that they actively protected the property owners. In other words, they protected the revenue generating part of the population. This ensured that the government continued to receive income from the productive parts of the economy. The primary reason for the fall of the Western Empire in the middle of the 5th century was the loss of so much of the productive parts of the empire. The United States is not protecting this ‘class’ of people. For the past few generations, the United States has been doing the opposite.

A comment was made on this blog that Paul Ryan started the talk about ‘class warfare’. That discussion had actually begun long before then. An example: The capital gains tax was imposed to tax those people who owned stock but did not pay taxes on their gains when they sold. Back in the 1950’s only ‘rich’ people owned stock. The ‘talk’ may not have been about ‘class warfare’ but the actions were. President Obama is not just talking about it. He is actually DOING it. He believes that discriminating against the wealthy in this country is just and desirable. His actions demonstrate the degree of his belief in this concept. Just look at the ‘stimulus’ and taxes that he has and is proposing. This is not idle talk. The best part is that it is politically beneficial.

With the economy not doing so well and the instability in Europe that may be spreading throughout the world, President Obama needs something to talk about. He can’t run for re-election on how well the accomplishments that have been made on his watch are working out. So he needs a whipping boy. China is a great overseas target. (With plenty of justification) But internally, President Obama needs a group to pick on.

It is a natural tendency to be envious of others who have what you do not. Particularly if you are struggling as so many are in this country today. President Obama feels that we Americans have been ‘soft’ these past few decades and need to toughen up. So let’s go get those greedy ‘rich’ people who don’t have to work to make a living and just feed off the misfortune of others. Well, maybe a lot of people agree with him. I do know that this was NOT a principal that this country was founded upon, nor did it help build the greatest economy ever built. This was a country where the streets were ‘paved with gold’ because anyone who had a desire and was willing to work hard could make something of themselves. In other words, become ‘rich’. Today, this is actively discouraged. President Obama is only following a long tendency to penalize the ‘rich’ and ‘spread the wealth around’ so that everyone is the same. This is another concept that this country was not founded upon. In fact, this is quite the opposite.

Another crisis

2011-09-27T07:45:00.000-07:00

Was it not just a little over a month ago that we had a crisis concerning the national debt? Now we have another? We are just lucky that we have President Obama to save us yet again.

This is beginning to sound as frustrating as the Incredibles. You know, Mr. Incredible stated at the beginning of the movie that he was wondering why he had to keep on saving the world. Could the world not just stay saved? At least for a little while? President Obama must be feeling the same way.

If the situation were not so serious we could all just laugh at it. In addition, we are seeing similar problems in Europe. The world markets are all showing signs of instability and no wonder. Two of the largest economic blocs in the world are going through financial crisis after crisis. Sooner or later, something big will happen.

Intervention by President Obama saved us from falling off an economic cliff back in 2009. We have been staving off disaster after disaster since then. It is very possible that sooner or later, our governments’ responses will become ineffective. Events will then be out of control and we will see the financial disaster that President Obama so artfully avoided. Well, hopefully things will not work out this way. I still have hope. However, I do not give President Obama any credit for saving us from anything but a temporary situation. Maybe what we really need is saving from those very
policies that seem to be so temporary at best.

Capitalists are crooks

2011-09-24T04:48:00.000-07:00

When the Soviet Union broke up, an attempt was made to make Russia a capitalist country. For the political left, this is a classic example of how entrepreneurs are crooks and bad people. The centralized economy that had existed for decades prior to this event did not allow for entrepreneurs to excel legally, so they had been underground. A very large percentage of the Soviet economy was the black market simply because so many needs could not be met by the economic system legally. They NEEDED the black market just to meet many basic needs and to survive. In many cases, these are the same economic leaders that we have in this country. So our ‘rich’ CEO’s are really just a legalized version of the mob. Naturally, the crooks that took over the Soviet economy abused the system and created a backlash that has placed Russia pretty much back in the same situation they were before.

Where I differ in opinion is that entrepreneurs are not necessarily crooks. You can drive plenty of honest people into illegal activity for many, many reasons. And our society is moving that way for plenty of reasons, many of which are the same. Most people do attempt to be honest, at least in the culture that they grew up in. I also differ in that most people will put in an honest day’s work, if the motivation exists. And it is just too bad for those who lack that motivation. A small percentage simply can’t provide enough productivity to sustain them, but this is a more easily supported minority because in most, if not all cultures, the percentage is well under 5 % of the working population. That is low enough for any population to help sustain. The point is that it was the closed economic system that was responsible for so many in the old Soviet Union being ‘crooks’.

A certain percentage of any population will do harm to others in order to benefit themselves. Having a closed economic system with only few outlets for human expression and creativity will force many more into a life of ‘crime’ than would otherwise. After a few generations, this attitude of breaking the law will become entrenched. It will take decades to overcome at the very least. Having an open economic system with many outlets for energetic activity actually allows the most positive (And negative) human attributes to express themselves. Most people will choose not to be criminals so this system allows those who are ‘on the fence’ a legal option. Because of its openness, capitalism does give more opportunity to real criminals. However, the economic history of the United States has demonstrated that the creativity unleashed by a capitalist system more than compensates for enhanced ability to do wrong. In other words, capitalism allows for human nature better than any other economic system devised so far. This is a major reason as to why capitalism is so successful.

The 'Rich'

2011-09-21T04:39:00.000-07:00

President Obama said in a clip yesterday that a teacher or person who makes $50,000 a year should not be paying a greater percentage of income taxes than a person who makes $250,000 a year should. In theory this sounds reasonable. What I see is that using teachers is a bad example. Teachers in the United States typically get their summers off. I sure as hell would like to make that kind of money AND have all summers off! (I know a couple of teachers who play golf and have a pretty decent handicap. I wonder how they have that much time.) Teachers also get sick time and tend to have other days off (Institute days) that the rest of the working world does not have. And this is all before we speak about pensions. Then we should speak about how teachers are protected like no others. Just attempt to fire a bad one and see how difficult it can be. This goes for any government employee for that matter. Naturally, some positions are more protected than others are. The point is that the system is set up that way. This is another place where our President and I disagree.

Typically, the person who makes the kind of money that President Obama calls ‘The rich’ are much more vulnerable to being let go (Or going bankrupt) than those who do not. (An exception is government employees, but lets skip that for now.) And if let go, it is much more difficult to replace that type of position. It is not like those types of jobs grow on trees. The responsibilities that go with that type of position should be much greater than those jobs that pay far less should. The point that I am attempting to make is that it is far easier to force people to be downwardly mobile than to encourage the system to produce upwardly mobile individuals. Taxation on a capitalist system does this. Naturally, any system can sustain a certain percentage of drain without serious effect. Capitalism is stronger than any other, so that percentage is higher. Even then, the percentage is not all that high before you begin to effect the system in a negative way. (We reached that point a very long time ago.)

President Obama believes that government can allocate the wealth of the nation better, more effectively and more ‘fairly’ than private organizations or the individual can. So it makes sense that taxation is one of the tools to ‘level the playing field’. I do not just disagree. Our country’s history has demonstrated that government does NOT allocate the wealth of the nation more effectively. And ‘fair’ is a decidedly subjective concept. What is ‘fair’ to you can be entirely different than what it means to me. The same can be said about the term ‘rich’.

To a homeless person, a person who has a job at McDonalds is a ‘rich’ person. Not to mention that ‘rich’ can mean many different things, like a very ‘rich’ or ‘full’ life. You can’t measure that concept. It is entirely subjective. I find it interesting that President Obama is now talking about ‘class warfare’. This can only be the result of the idea of subjectively discriminating against a group of people as he is doing with the group of people that he calls ‘rich’.

Backlash

2011-09-17T05:53:00.000-07:00

In February of 2010, (Just prior to the passage of the Health Care bill) I made the first political phone calls of my life. I called my Representative in the U.S. House and both of my U.S. Senators. I told them that I was in my 50’s and had never been politically active. I had never sent any political campaign any money. From what I have been reading and seeing on TV, the Health Care bill was not popular. If it is passed against what I see as the will of the American people, I will become active and I will send in money. I figure that I am not alone.

I guess they figured that this was the only chance that they would get in the foreseeable future. So they passed it anyway.

“We have to pass this bill so that YOU can find out what is in it.” Man, they must have really, really wanted this bill. This burns so badly that I am worried about the strength of the republic. The backlash from this can only be hoped to be contained somewhat. A possible situation:

In 2013, the Republicans take control of both houses of Congress with huge majorities. The White House makes it a clean sweep. So they make a bill that eliminates 50% of social security payments and place it on a better financial footing. After the bill becomes law, THEY can figure out what it does. Now republicans address other social programs in the same way. After the bills are signed, THEY can figure out what it does. The next bill proposed makes all property owners votes count as five votes. Or how about making women’s votes count as ½ a vote? You get the picture.

The backlash can become even more extreme than the act of passing Health Care. I know that these are extreme situations and are very unlikely. It is more likely that the backlash will not have sustaining power beyond the next presidential election, but that is a roll of the dice. What I do want to point out is that desperate situations call for desperate actions. If the situation or ‘crisis’ is really, really desperate, who the hell knows what can happen if our leadership uses concepts like ‘We need to pass this so that YOU can find out what we are doing to YOU.” Anything could be a ‘go’ no matter what the American public believes or says. Where will the republic be then?

Saving whose job?

2011-09-14T04:01:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I mentioned how President Obama had emphasized that the Americans who are out of work couldn’t wait until the next election. So we need to pass this jobs bill ’right away’. This way, we can put America back to work. Economically speaking, it will take 6 months to a year for this job bill to really have an impact, if it is to work at all. Just in time for next year’s election.

Naturally, everyone believes that they do a good job. I am certain that President Obama believes this as well. And naturally, he wants to be re-elected. And if he were able to get the economy roaring again, the prospect of his re-election would be much higher, if not assured. So passing this job bill is doing two things at once: President Obama believes that it will work and create many new jobs. At the same time, it will help his re-election campaign immensely. I do not blame him for this. As a capitalist, I understand the motivation to protect and improve ones position as well as improvement of your property. In fact, I encourage it. Nobody can take care of your property better than you can. Where I differ from President Obama on this issue is that he does not believe that what his jobs bill does is actually the opposite of allowing the individual to take better care of his/her property. The Health Care bill is a case in point. This Health Care bill shows that government can run the system better than if it is privately owned and managed. And we needed to pass it so that ‘YOU can find out what is in it.’ The American jobs bill sounds like the Health Care bill and the stimulus that was passed in 2009 all wrapped up in one.

President Obama is pushing for the bill to be passed without any changes and is refusing to compromise. I do have to give him credit for being consistent. What is different in this case is that his political position is much weaker. Republicans now control the Congressional House and the public view of his effectiveness is VERY low. I believe that he called a joint session of Congress and is pushing this bill to be passed ‘right away’ in order to save his own job.

The President's speech

2011-09-10T04:20:00.000-07:00

I have to admit. I was expecting to find lots of things to dislike about the upcoming presidential speech. I am a conservative and would naturally find lots of things to disagree about. I was not disappointed.

Our President called a joint session of Congress. Usually a President calls for this when a major issue of the national government is at hand. Such as when FDR asked a joint session of Congress to declare war against Japan. Or after 9/11 when a foreign organization implemented an overt, direct attack upon the United States. The American Jobs Act may be important. It is not on the same level.

President Obama mentioned ‘crisis’ several times. This financial ‘crisis’ must be VERY important to call a joint session of Congress. Yet I remember having been told by this administration back in early 2009 that we had been saved from ‘falling off the economic cliff’. And here we are 2 and ½ years later and this economic ‘cliff’ is back. So the first effort must not have worked all that well. And if the early ‘crisis’ was so dire, why did he not call for a joint session of Congress at that point? I agree that we have an economic problem today. I am attempting to point out how our leadership sees the ‘crisis’ differently today.

One major point that President Obama wished to impart is that unemployed Americans can’t wait the 14 months until the next election. They need action, NOW. So pass this bill right away. He repeated this a number of times. I have not seen nor heard much about this bill yet. So we should pass it before we know what it does? Sounds like “We must pass this bill so that YOU can find out what is in it.” And our President called a joint session of Congress for this? Hurry up and study this bill so that we can pass it and save the country? I was of the impression that he was not speaking to me, nor was he speaking to the Senate. He was addressing the House of Representatives. President Obama did not need to call for a joint session of Congress to speak to the House of Representatives.

Now I am going to become picky. President Obama is a good orator. He speaks well and sounds like a moderate, who listens and works well with others. As he wrapped up his speech, President Obama showed his dedication, enthusiasm along with firmness of belief when he described how he rejected the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights in order to compete in the global economy. You could just tell that he really believes this and is very firm about it. Then his voice began to trail off as he ended his speech with ‘God bless you’. His voice then dropped much lower as he said, “And God bless the United States of America” and he turned his back at the cameras. Maybe I am putting too much into this, but it sure seemed to me that he did not really want to say that last sentence. It was like an afterthought. Let’s just get it over with. I had the distinct impression that his heart was not in it. Particularly when compared to the enthusiasm he showed earlier. What a lame ending of a speech where he called for a joint session of Congress.

Eating crow

2011-09-07T09:58:00.000-07:00

The following is a quote from a comment about my post on how government does not respond well.

“The last time I received service like that from a public office...yesterday at the library. A women listen to my story of why my books were late, removed the fine and then assisted me in finding the books I needed. When I could not get them, she ordered them from another library and showed me how I can do that online from my home.”

Excellent! It just goes to show me two things: That the people in government are NOT out to get you. It is not the individual that is a problem. It is the system. The system is just not effective in running an economy. Please note how it was a teaching moment and it is in his best interest to learn how to do it himself. Not have someone else do it for him. Once again, the history of the United States should be adequate proof of this.

The second thing is that the best response will be at the local level. The higher up you go into any organization, the less responsive it becomes. This applies to business and non-profit organizations as well. What really cripples government (Among other things) is the inability to fire people. People like the librarian in this example are NOT the problem. It is the ones who are not working out and you can’t get rid of that are the problem. What is even more important, is that the person who should be fired in many cases will actually do better if they are forced to take a new direction that better suits their strengths. Business can (except in union shops) and frequently do this. I see it all the time where I work. And I have gone through it. It can really be a soul-searching event. I have benefited from it beyond what I expected. Government employees are just as human as the rest of us.

War is a crime comment

2011-09-03T04:49:00.000-07:00

I pulled this quote from Warisacrime.org dated 8/29/11. The quote is in reference to Palestinian statehood.

"In other words, willingness to sacrifice independence and stay occupied are requisites to avoid attacks and other retaliatory actions."

The argument is that statehood is not to be sought because it will expose the new nation to open attacks and ‘other retaliatory actions.’ If they want to avoid this, then don’t seek statehood. I disagree.

Israel is responding to attacks. Israel is not the one that is initiating the attacks. Statehood will add a huge dimension to this. Lets say an attack, like so many in the past, is launched from land that the new state controls. Any Israeli response into that same land will then become an invasion of a sovereign country making it a formal act of war. (The initial attack was also an act of war, but this has been going on for so long and so many times that this is virtually ignored.) The possibility of other national governments (Like Egypt or Jordan) becoming directly involved are much greater if a national governments’ sovereignty is violated rather than if the land is just ‘occupied’.

The prevention of Palestinian statehood is to be attempted because the probability of open warfare is much greater if it is implemented. Any of the current violence going on today could much more easily result in making the conflict an international one with all of the implications that implies for the entire region. This is a much larger issue and far more important than avoidance of attack or threats of retaliatory action.

Palestinian statehood

2011-08-31T04:05:00.000-07:00

The UN is scheduled to vote on Palestinian statehood in September. The United States has the capacity to stop this by veto, but I can see President Obama not doing this. He believes that Israel is the problem. This will create a new national government to balance against Israel’s strength. Supposedly, statehood and recognition is what the Palestinians want more than anything. What we will ultimately get is open warfare between two (Or more) national governments.

Just think, HAMAS and FATAH being enabled to have their ‘soldiers’ put on uniforms, complete with all of the rights and abilities of any other national army. And to top this all off, bordering Israel. Want to start a war? This ought to do it just fine.

It may take some time. After all, the irregular ‘army’ that the Palestinians are fielding today will need to be updated and formally organized. Equipment should be and will be updated and expanded in quality and quantity. This takes time, although how much depends upon how eager they are to use it openly. Of course, they just may decide to keep covert for as long as possible, just to keep everyone guessing. Then the question becomes how long will it take them to provoke Israel into launching the next international war by attacking them. This way, Israel becomes the aggressor. This is an important consideration that may postpone the escalation of open warfare. Besides, this way, if Israel can be forced into an ‘invasion’, other governments can become involved. Any attack by Israel would then become a formal ‘invasion’ of another Islamic government. This could easily unite the Islamic world into a major confrontation against Israel. This would play right into Iran’s hand. All Iran would need then would be nuclear weapons. All of this is far more likely today than ever before, particularly if a new national state of Palestinian is established.

Money for nothing

2011-08-27T05:02:00.000-07:00

A woman at work was saying last year how in France the medical system is free. She was going on and on about how little the French pay for medical treatment and how much they get. It must be really nice to believe this. I am afraid that I just cannot.

You know what you get for free? Not much good stuff is for free. You must pay in one way or another for quality. You can find a diamond in the rough once in a while, but to base our medical system on this is folly. And it really is not free. You pay in the much lower quality you will receive. The problem here is that this is the long-term view. If we made health care free, we would enjoy the reserve of medical professionals and resources that have been built up over generations of capital reinvestment. However, the money to maintain this excellence would slow to a trickle. It would take time, but a serious decline in innovation would immediately begin to follow. Lack of resources would become chronic as time went on. Quality would naturally suffer. All we have to do is look at England and see what we will be getting.

The riots and looting going on in England right now resemble the problems in Greece earlier this year. These countries have crippled their economies by allocating the resources of the nation through the central government. Poor investment is the norm rather than the exception. We have been seeing this within our own country now for decades. We did start the process at a later time than they did. Not to mention that our economy is much larger so it would take a longer period of time before the process reaches the point that England and Greece are at today. And make no mistake. We are heading that way. The financial crises that we have been seeing and the instability in the markets today are the warning signs. The point here is that you can’t keep getting something for nothing. Sooner or later you will pay, in one way or another.

Capitalism vrs. Socialism: Conclusion

2011-08-24T04:40:00.000-07:00

The history of the United State has proven at least one thing to the world. That over time, capitalism is the most effective economic engine devised by man. Many people today dispute the morality of this system. However, it cannot be denied that capitalism was and is the source of America’s economic strength. The largest and most innovative economy ever built.

In order to thrive, capitalism needs resource investment. In general, the source of this capital is profit gained from economic activity. Over time, the re-investment of capital builds up an infrastructure that allows for extra resources to be diverted into longer-term research and development. The ‘miracle of compound interest’ then begins to be fully felt on a national level. The United States has been past this stage for well over a century. Many of the problems of today can be seen to be because we are tapping much of the lifeblood of our economy, capital.

Through taxation, capital that would be re-invested in the economy is diverted into other projects. Many argue that this is desirable. It also makes sense that a certain amount or percentage of capital could be ‘withdrawn’ without damaging the effectiveness of the system. (I believe that the United States passed this point a long time ago.) Once again, many argue that government can allocate the national resources better and more ‘fairly’. Despite this, it cannot be denied that the withdrawal of capital from the system makes it function less effectively. The argument goes that these resources will be allocated more effectively and ‘fairly’ than if the resources were left in the private sector. This argument has been and is becoming the dominant one today.

The reallocation of wealth by government means that people who did not earn the resources through productive economic activity get to enjoy the benefits as if they did. Who in this group would not vote for this? It is human nature. However, this does not reward someone for hard work and sacrifice. It penalizes them and rewards those who are the privileged that get to receive the benefits. It can be argued that those who receive these resources get them because of subjective measurements that override the objective measurement of individual effort. This is counter to the economic principals upon which the United States was founded. I believe that this is becoming a minority viewpoint. We are addicted to spending.

“Once a population realizes that it can vote itself entitlement, fiscal responsibility becomes impossible.” This is precisely where the United States is today. Those who recognize the financial trouble that the United States has today are many of those who believe in capitalism. Those who deny the severity of the fiscal problems we face today are generally those who believe that the government can allocate the resources of the nation better than if privately owned. The present impasse that we are seeing in our government today is a very good indication of how well this view is entrenched. The idea of a nation spending it’s way out of recession or depression has been accepted and implemented since the 1930’s. Not completely, but the debt of our nation demonstrates that it has been implemented fairly consistently for many decades. The amount of capital available for private investment (in relation to GDP) has fallen dramatically and this is really beginning to have a detrimental impact. The capitalist system must feed upon itself in order to survive. Like a starving person. Just wait until Health Care kicks in. Just under a 5th of the economy of the private sector will then begin to be managed by the government. It will take years, but the process can easily be irreversible. Government develops plans and ideas. Not ‘miracles’ of capital reinvestment. The instability of the markets today is a very real indicator of what we can expect in a worsening situation.

These ‘crises’ are real. It can only be a matter of time before one of these sets off a chain of events that cause major disruption. Economic downturns happen every so often and severe ones occur less often. It has been a long time since the last BIG one. A capitalist economy can react effectively and more quickly than a socialist economy. After all, when you have ‘skin in the game’ you will react to events more readily than if you do not. Unless the United States implements fundamental CHANGE, we can expect the situation to continue to get worse until a major event triggers events beyond anyone’s control.

Capitalism vrs Socialism: Part II

2011-08-20T05:57:00.001-07:00

In politics, a week is a long time. You hear about how politicians are shortsighted. All they do is look for the next election. (An eternity in politics) A Month is forever in politics. Corporations are seen to be no better. But is that really true?

Corporations are seen by many as looking only to the next monthly profit statement. (Actually, many are released quarterly) Even this cycle is much longer than a week in politics. A little longer example is development of a new fighter aircraft. It takes years of research and development. Major capital investments are made even before the project reaches the prototype stage. And it is no certain thing that ANY will ever be built. This type of activity is common in the business world. A different type of long term project is the life cycle of buildings. The Sears tower being built in the early 1970’s put a large dent in Sears profits for years. Yet the building still stands (40 years later) and is still productive. This certainly is NOT a short-term project, nor is it short term thinking. In contrast to political view and activity, capitalism IS a long term thinking ideology. And in the short term it responds to the needs of people far better.

A good friend of mine recently ate at what I consider to be an expensive restaurant. Both he and his wife were disappointed with the food and he wrote in to express this. They received a coupon (No expiration date) of $30.00 each. (Not the full price of the dinner) This type of reaction is common in the business world. When was the last time you got that type of treatment from ANY government agency? Government does not exist to help people get what they want or need. This is precisely why government cannot run an economy anywhere nearly as effectively as a privately owned capitalist economy WILL run.

Government is does not nourish capitalism. Government feeds upon capitalism’s productivity. It takes money away from the economy through taxation and reallocates it to areas that have not earned it. This does not create any new products nor does it support innovation in thought. Government feeds off of Capitalism.

Capitalism vrs. Socialism: Part I

2011-08-17T05:03:00.000-07:00

A list of inventions due to the effects of a capitalist economic system is quite impressive. (Not necessarily American) I boiled them down to:

1) The Steam engine (Steamboat)
2) The Cotton gin
3) The reaper
4) Mass production of steel
5) The Electric light bulb
6) The Phonograph
7) The telephone
8) The internal combustion engine
9) Mass production of automobiles
10) The airplane
11) The computer
12) Nuclear power

These inventions were world changing. (I left out all of medical innovations and innovations in rocket science) Many more exist but I needed to make it a VERY short list. (How about the transistor?)

My study of history has enabled me to find two world changing inventions from a socialist economic system: (The Soviet Union)

1) The T34

The T34 was the most advanced tank design in the world when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. The T34 was so far advanced over ANY other design that it took more than 2 full years for Germany to begin to catch up, which they never fully did. Germany built the Tiger tank to fight it off. The T34 enabled Russia to hold off and push back the German invasion. The “Russia Front” during World War II meant for Germany that 75% of its tanks and men went there from 1941 until the end of the war. It also meant 70% of the air force until 1944. In other words, the United States and England needed Russia to win the war. This is world changing. The problem here is that the T34 would not even make the list under capitalism. Invention of the tank would be well down on the list, but it was not Socialist or Russian, but English.

2) The Katyusha rocket launcher

This artillery was an innovative and VERY effective way of helping to drive Germany out of Russia. Germans made newer versions and the U.S and England began to make their own copies before the end of the war.

I am certain that I have missed some but I would like to point out how ALL twelve inventions in the capitalist list CAN be used as weapons of war, but are mainly weapons of commerce. The two socialist inventions I have found are purely weapons of war. One of the good things about capitalism is that it is good at waging wars of commerce. This channeling of human aggression, greed, and ambition into economic activity is much better than declared wars by national governments. In any case, socialistic economic systems fail miserably to manage and run an economy well compared to the inventiveness and organizations of capitalism. (*NOTE: Both of the ‘inventions’ by Russia would be listed down below 50 if combined with the capitalist list.)

Do you know of any that I have missed concerning socialist economic inventions?

(I can also think of laser eye surgery, but this was considered to risky to use on people until after improvements. In my subjective view, this is NOT a world changing invention. )

Magic

2011-08-14T05:07:00.000-07:00

This is a response to a comment on the latest post of "Armageddon".

"Magic" invented the cotton gin, the reaper, mass production of steel. How about the light bulb or phonograph? How about the Airplane? The computer? Nuclear power? The list is incredible.

Yea, I choose "Magic" over government "plans" because capitalism channels human behavior into constructive directions. Not everyone and everything, but United States history still proves that the postitives far outweigh the negatives.

Armageddon: Part II

2011-08-13T05:24:00.000-07:00

The United States economy is large and complicated. Like everything else, it can fail. Like in politics, economic failure has two extremes. On one hand, depression would cause the economy to actually shrink and prices to fall. Money actually gains value. This can theoretically be corrected by spending. The other extreme is hyperinflation that results from excess printing of money. Money loses value rapidly and the barter system begins to flourish again. This is because hard items retain value and currency does not. This is what happened in Germany in the 1920s’ and in numerous other countries since. It has not happened to a first world economy since World War II. Hyperinflation is by far the more likely event between these two.

The United States has been on a spending spree the like which has never been seen before by mankind. A potential stabilizing force is that the size of today’s worldwide population and economy dwarfs all past similar situations. The one thing that does not change is Human nature. We will fight over scarce resources. Unless the fundamental structure of the economy of the United States is CHANGED to allow free enterprise to work its magic, we cannot expect anything but a severe correction in the world wide economy. Particularly felt by the United States. This will lead to open warfare somewhere along the line. Even though the U.S. is nowhere near the domination of the past, it is still the largest single economy. Worldwide implications are magnified in particular spots that will reach the point of desperation enough to trigger organized violence. It is preventable, but in the political world of today, it is unlikely to occur in the long run without the loss of the republic in some fundamental ways. This is what I consider to be Armageddon.

The loss of the republic in the United States of America would be a worldwide disaster. (In the long run. The short run (meaning a generation or two) would actually benefit the economy of both) The loss of our republic is much closer today than ever before. Many reasons for this and most of them are economic. The rest are human nature. Just look at what is happening in Europe, particularly in England and Greece. If things become bad enough, martial law may be required. After all, extreme situations call for extreme measures. And hyperinflation IS an extreme situation.

The downgrade of American debt is a natural reaction to the national balance sheet. We already have so much debt in relation to GDP that additional debt becomes more risky. It only makes sense to charge more for additional loans to someone who already has a serious debt problem. Eventually, the risk is so great that ANY loan is foolish to make. At the phase we are in today, any higher interest payment is an additional tax on our economy without ANY benefit to us whatsoever. At least with something like unemployment, we can expect that money to be spent within our own economy. This interest on the debt is just GONE. Once you reach a certain point, (What that point is can only be guessed at) massive inflation MUST result. And this can explode without warning and usually does. I would expect open warfare to explode somewhere on the planet within the next few years. I am not referring to numerous small wars. These will become regional if not worldwide within a short period of time. Loss of the republic can easily be expected beginning around this time. I consider this another form of Armageddon. Even though the short run of a few generations will benefit, absolute power does corrupt absolutely. If we can push this off another generation or two, is it not worth the effort? Why speed it up?

These economic ‘crisis’ are real. They are occurring more frequently today. It can only be a relatively short time before we take action, or some event in and of itself minor can set off a snowball that will be out of control. I would expect war to break out not long after. Potentially a real Armageddon depending upon how you define Armageddon and how extreme the situation becomes.

Armageddon: Part I

2011-08-10T05:23:00.000-07:00

Remember after the stimulus was passed in 2009? President Obama responded by saying, "People thought that this would cause Armageddon, but I went out this morning and it was a beautiful day."

Well, that cliff that he saved us from falling off is back. I guess the ‘fix’ that he help implement did not work so well. It is after all, only two years later. And CHANGE did not work so well. So what do we do now? I have an idea: Let’s do more of the same. Lets continue to spend our way out of trouble. This is infinitely easier than making the difficult decisions as to which parts of government are less important. No matter what you do when cutting, you will piss someone off. Politicians on ‘both sides of the aisle’ don’t want to do that, at just about any price. This is at least part of the reason why we are in this mess in the first place. This is after all, human nature at work.

Is it not strange how the two sides can switch? President Obama voted against raising the debt limit back in 2006 (One of the few times he did NOT vote PRESENT) and yet he rails against Republicans for fighting against raising the limit. Republicans got the raise in the debt limit back in ’06 and are fighting tooth and nail against it today. Switches like this are common in politics. Today’s issue is that the fundamental economic strength of the United States is viewed as being so weak and vulnerable to shock. One of the biggest problems is that enough people understand the position well enough to realize that this is a fight that cannot be lost. And yet the Republicans are the ones keeping away the deal. I thought that Republicans were so good at making deals that they are constantly laughed at by Democrats. After all, it is commonly thought that all we are doing is waiting for the Republicans to cave again at the last minute. This is what happened in 1995. What makes this ‘crisis’ different is that for the Republican side, this is an all or nothing issue. I personally believe that this is the last chance to save the Republic. Makes it impossible to compromise.

One thing that really bothers me today is that I have never seen this country so divided. I am counting
Vietnam and it was bad enough. Today the problem is financial, which is an issue that is not so easily resolved. We could just cut and run from Vietnam. (We did just that) The financial problems of today do not allow for us to do so, although we can ‘just kick the can down the road’ by just doing the same and
not CHANGING our behavior. This has been going on for generations. Eventually, something will happen. What has happened in Greece would be a very mild example as the United States is the largest economy in the world. Violence occurred in Greece and is going on in England right now and with nobody to bail out the largest economy, the possibility of some degree of Armageddon becomes very real. Why do I believe this?

Like the budget and debt limit conflicts, wars are fought over scarce resources. Someone wants (or needs) what someone else has and is willing or desperate enough to attempt to take it by force. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the greatest war in mankind’s history was immediately preceded by the greatest economic downturn in mankind’s history. And we have the possibility of the largest economy in the world going broke? I just cannot see how a war would not result.

Debt deal

2011-08-03T08:20:00.000-07:00

From what I am hearing about this deal, this is a much better deal for conservatives than I had believed to be possible. Not that I believe that this will alter the long term trend that the United States has in spending more than it takes in. I believe that this can only be a temporary setback. The American public has demonstrated a remarkable ability to change its mind. We will go back to business as usual in a few years. In the meantime, we have still lost more than we have won.

The passage of Health Care in 2010 and the impact it will have is still in the future. Even with the recent debt deal, the complications and expenses of nationalized Health Care far exceeds anything that has been won in this new deal. The only thing that would completely neutralize the effect of Health Care would be for a repeal, which is NOT going to happen. In other words, Health Care is permanent and is here to stay. This is one of the reasons as to why it was passed the way that it was. Even though the Democrat majority knew that it would take big hits for passing Health Care, they understood that undoing it would prove to be virtually impossible. They are correct in this assessment. Yet even without the new Health Care system, this new deal is only temporary.

As a compromise, very few people are going to be satisfied with this debt deal. I am one of these. The basic underlying financial problem is being addressed, but only in a temporary way. And it does not go anywhere near far enough. (This was expected, as I do not believe that permanent correction is possible without the loss of the republic) The general trend of big government and big spending has been going on for more than 3 generations. (Actually, much longer than that but I consider the 1960’s to be the beginning of the real acceleration in BIG government entitlement) In other words, it will take many elections and many years to permanently reverse this trend. This is possible, but it does go against human nature. In this way, the Democrats have created a pattern that does go with human nature and in this way, they get what they ultimately want. Power and Control over the economy of the United States. Actually, they already have accomplished this. All that needs to be done now is complete the process. Health Care goes a long way toward this objective.

The economic cliff: Part IV (Conclusion)

2011-07-30T05:01:00.000-07:00

The financial crises are coming thick and fast today. How many times in just the past 5 or 6 years? Some are more immediate and important than others, but these are fundamental financial issues that have as the root cause the inability of the United States (And other) government(s) in restraining its spending. Don’t think so? It has been more than 2 years since the U.S. has had a federal budget. How can you control spending if you don’t know what you have to work with? Hyperinflation is potentially possible today, with catastrophic implications worldwide. (Think Germany, 1920’s) The Republic is not addressing the issue and I believe that the time has passed that it can recover without the loss of the representative government, as we know it today. Government does NOT allocate the national wealth more effectively than when privately owned. If you believe that statement, you are on one side of this issue. If you do not then you are on the other side. This is a black and white issue similar to abortion. When was the last time you changed your mind on either of these issues? This is not likely to occur more than once in your lifetime, if ever. The catalyst here is the financial instability of the United States. The impact is likely to be worldwide and I don’t see much of the world changing its mind on either issue either. It is human nature.

The Republicans forced a showdown back in 1995 and got a political black eye that certainly cost them seats in 1996. President Obama can easily figure to obtain this type of support if it came down to it. And he may also figure that he has an ace in the hole. The 14th amendment can be interpreted to allow the President to go ahead and lift the debt limit anyway. An end-run like the way that Health Care was passed. Pass the bill so that the population can find out what is in the bill. This same passage of Heath Care has stimulated a resistance to the growth in government spending. Hence the impasse concerning raising the debt limit, AND raising taxes. (The two events are NOT alike, but I link them because the passage of the Health Care bill provided the motivation to fight raising the debt limit to the very end.)

A major problem is the actual working of the Republic. If you don’t have anything, (Or very little) would you not vote for someone who is going to raise taxes on those that do and then allocate at least some of that money to you? Would it not be in your best interest to build a larger amount of people who don’t have anything so that they will also vote for you? I am certain that many do not actually think this way. Many are caught up in the belief that it is morally correct to allocate wealth from the ‘rich’ and give to the poor. (Think of Robin Hood) Although we all like to think that Robin Hood was good, he did rob people. In a fairy tale, nobody gets hurt. In reality, people are killed and wealth stolen by those who personally gain from the act and at the same time, builds dependency of those who receive the wealth to those who are ‘stealing’ it. Not exactly the principals on which our country was founded upon.

No matter how this plays out, the United States is still in deep do-do. The interest on the debt is only just becoming unmanageable. If the interest rates can be kept low, we will be able to put off the day of reckoning a little. It cannot be for long. This may provide the last ditch window for real CHANGE. If interest rates go up, hyperinflation is a very real concern. I believe this to be the most likely scenario, although many other outcomes are possible. In any case, the day has to come where the spending of national resources of the United States reaches critical mass. Seeing as the United States is the largest economy in the world, this makes it a worldwide problem. The fact that these crises are coming closer together leads me to believe that if we do not force the issue this time around, it is going to happen despite what we do then. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The problem is that the ounce of prevention will likely prove to be too little, too late.

Democrats are surrendering?

2011-07-27T05:50:00.000-07:00

I heard and watched James Carville On CNN last night (7/26/11) say that the Democrats were attempting to surrender and the Republicans were refusing to accept. A moment later, he claimed that Democrats were getting a positive polling percentage of 60-40 or 70-30 on the debt issue. (I don’t doubt, but this is unconfirmed) If this is true, why would he claim his side to be surrendering when they held all the cards? They would be raising the bet, not folding or surrendering.

I did not believe that President Obama was signaling any surrender in last night’s national address. I saw him attempting to plead his case. Like the attorney that he is with plenty of fight left in him.

Hey! I have an idea! Let us pass a law that balances the budget by reducing the spending of the United States federal government and no new taxes. They can figure out what the bill says after it becomes law. For me, this debt issue is backlash for the passage of health Care. I am probably not alone.

No wonder I have never seen my country so badly divided. This is even worse than Vietnam. And this is on President Obama’s watch. Some moderate who is ‘reaching across the aisle’.

This is one reason why I believe that the Republic is in danger like we have not seen since the U.S. Civil War.

Norway terrorism

2011-07-24T08:08:00.000-07:00

Sorry, this attack in Norway will postpone the discussion of the financial problems in the U.S.

The recent terrorist attack in Norway could be (Among other things) a backlash to the Islamic invasion of Norway and Europe. I have believed for a long time that is it not possible to defeat Islamic jihad without organized violence. (Warfare) Some issues do not have any other solution. Example: It was not possible to stop Hitler without warfare either.

I personally have chosen to pressure my government into waging warfare against governments that support Islamic nationalism. He chose a path that I find repulsive. I am not living there, where he is much closer to the scene. It is much easier to remain calm and selective when you are far away. Wars bring out the best and worst in people. Not everyone can be restrained, particularly when under stress. Athough we are not perfect, I still believe that our societies in the 'West' are far better at restraining themselves from this type of action than ANY Islamic society.

The economic cliff: Part III

2011-07-23T06:02:00.000-07:00

The stimulus that was passed in 2009 was supposed to stimulate the economy, kind of like what happened in 1977-78. It was supposed to save the United States from ‘falling off an economic cliff’ and fall into deep recession or even depression as prices contracted. (Like what happened in the 1930’s)

It did not do so primarily because our relative financial condition is so much weaker today. Back in the 1930’s, the United States government (As well as the State, city and local levels) did not have the expenses that we have today. (And even in 1977) Most of that excess cash in the stimulus went to pay off those existing commitments. The hyperinflation that was expected has not yet really begun, although disturbing signs are becoming more and more apparent. (Just look at commodity prices, an important leading indicator.)

The main point is that the economic cliff we were saved from in 2009 is back, and the fall is looking to be greater than before. This is because the basic underling issue is that the United States is continuing to spend far more than it takes in. Our national resources have been shrinking for decades. The debt is so large now that the interest coming due is becoming unmanageable. This is like the homeowner who has been borrowing against his/her home for years and the equity is about paid out. Our county is no longer the rich one that was built during the 19th century and the 1st half of the 20th century. As a direct result, we can expect a much lower level of productivity and corresponding lifestyle. And this is IF we take correct action. If not, we can expect unrest and violence internally. (Think Greece and other countries that have had to implement CHANGE) This could easily spread, as economic issues are a very real cause of warfare as nations fight over limited resources. In other words, this economic cliff is much closer and it looks like a longer fall than we have seen in a very long time. Can it be no wonder that the division in our country is so bad? Economics is a basic cause of warfare. This is only one more reason why the war going on is going to become much, much larger before it is over.

The economic cliff Part II

2011-07-20T05:21:00.000-07:00

Our economy was built on the principal that in order to built wealth; capital from profit is re-invested. Just like the way that an individual can become ‘rich’. Spend less than you make and invest the rest in assets that go up in value. Successful companies are able to re-invest, ones that fail cannot. How well this concept worked was seen as our country prospered like none ever did before. And we impacted the entire world with positive CHANGE. We are not doing this today. Through taxation, our government is limiting the ability of companies to perform this vital function. The money drawn from companies through taxes is spent on much lower productive endeavors. (Entitlements are the worst offender, being paid to not do any productive activity) In addition, the higher cost of doing business has encouraged capital into moving out of our country, a process that has been going on for decades. What is a bigger problem is that our government debt is being sold overseas. This capital outflow is more easily controlled than that which is privately owned. Yet this outflow of debt is continuing to accelerate. Interest on this debt is spiraling out of control.

Think of your mortgage. During the first few years of payment, the principal is paid off at a VERY slow rate. Most of the payment is interest. The last few years are almost entirely of capital re-payment. This is the basic economic theory that our country ran upon until the mid-20th century. Since then, the United States has been spending more than it takes in. (Reversing the mortgage, if you will) Taking your mortgage example, you now lose your job. Now you don’t make enough to maintain the house, let alone feed everyone. How long could you maintain this, even if your home was completely paid off?

You would borrow against the value of your home. As time went on, the interest on your debt would become so high that you could not even make payments on the interest, leave alone the re-payment of the capital that you have borrowed. You no longer own the house you live in. This is close to where we are today. And we have enough people in our country in denial to prevent a valid solution.

When I was in high school (1972-1976) my father had told me not to expect anything from Social Security. It would be broke by the time I reached that age. The financial problems were well known even then. In the 1980’s, the Republicans attempted to at least slow the problem down with some fixes. The population of the United States said very loudly: ‘NO!’ The attempt was made again in the early 2000’s but the Republicans got the same answer from the population of the United States. We want our entitlements, even if our financial future is in jeopardy.

Back in 1992, I was working for a bank when the lower levels in Chicago flooded. Our building had water fountains that were unusable for 6 months. During that time, the company inserted water bottles to supply fresh drinking water. After the city water was declared safe to drink, the company removed the bottles. Uproar resulted. At a meeting to discuss this issue, the company said that the 3 buildings that it maintained cost $180,000 a year to supply water in the bottles over what the city water cost. So if the bottles were maintained, they would have to lay off some staff to cover the cost. Out of 40-50 professionals (We were NOT union, we were computer programmers and analysts with college degrees) I was the only person who did not raise my hand to vote for keeping the bottled water. I asked several people later why they voted the way that they did. The reply was: “I don’t believe them.”

THIS IS WHAT WE FACE TODAY.

Companies have gone bankrupt because a union that represented the workers did not believe the financial trouble was as bad as the management believed. When unions do give in, it is because they finally understand the financial trouble the company is in. Many times, even then what they do is very reluctantly done. The very minimum. This is the same attitude that I see in the Democrat party (And the American public in general) concerning the financial trouble our country is in today. For the most part, a complete misunderstanding of the position we are in and even if understood, a lack of agreement with what it would take to reverse the process. Hence an economic cliff.

The economic cliff: Part I

2011-07-16T04:45:00.000-07:00

In order to understand where we are, I would like to discuss how we got here. This subject is much too large to cover in just three posts, but this is my attempt to grapple with this major issue.

The United States was founded upon the economic theory that the individual can allocate the national resources better than the government. Individual property rights were given priority over just about everything, including the right to vote. We began to see the positive results from this policy almost immediately. (An example is the U.S.S. Constitution, how well it was built and commanded)

Beginning in the first half of the 19th century, the United States began its long run of inventiveness and achievement. The cotton gin and the reaper revolutionized farming and these were only two of the most visible breakthroughs. It is not commonly known that a coinage shortage existed in this country until well into the 2nd half of the 19th century. The base currency was the Spanish real and ‘piece of eight’. This was because our government had such limited resources and controlled so little of the economy that not enough coinage and paper were being minted to supply the expansion of the economy. The 2nd half of the 19th century saw a boom as the industrial revolution caught hold in the United States. (Even with the crippling effects of the Civil War) We invented the phonograph, the electric light, the mass production of steel, and a host of other innovations that had a positive effect worldwide. People began to move to the cities, as it became more practical to make a living besides farming. At the same time, the national wealth was increasing at such a rapid rate that labor began to want a piece of the pie. They began to organize and became a force to be reckoned with. The innovations and breakthroughs continued into the 20th century.

The U.S. invented the airplane, refrigeration, and mass production of the automobile, just to name some of the most obvious ones in the first 2 decades of the 20th century. The crippling effect of World War I did not even touch the United States. Then came the Great Depression.

The Great Depression was the 4th depression to hit the United States. It was the one that hit the hardest and gave birth to the economic theory that countries can spend their way out of financial trouble. Because of the over extension in the economy, prices deflated instead of going up. By spending money, the government can increase the money supply and reverse this process although inflation would eventually become a concern. This is a major reason as to why gold was made illegal to own. Our government did not want resources being shifted into gold.

World War II with its massive spending pulled the United States out of the Depression. After the war, spending was reduced that caused a recession. The Marshall Plan killed two birds with one stone: It helped rebuild Europe and also eased the United States out of the recession by spending at a level that was considerably lower than spending during the war. This helped ease the U.S. off of the dependency from massive spending it had been on. The net effect was to encourage the idea that you can spend your way out of financial difficulty.

The mid-20th century has been the peak of United States innovation. The automatic transmission was one of the smaller examples. United States medical advances led the world from the early 20th century until today. The computer has revolutionized modern life. We invented atomic power, the most important energy discovery of the age. These are the accomplishments of an environment that private capital built up over centuries can achieve. Don’t think privately held companies are that important? England may have given up on this theory today, but the Supermarine Company built the Spitfire on a gamble (During the depression) that the government MAY have bought it. It helped save the country. This applied to other aircraft types as well. When Germany was facing defeat in early 1945, private companies (Krupp being the most obvious) held assets that were helpful in rebuilding. The PEOPLE will take care of their house better than ANYONE else will. When was the list time you washed a rental car? The economic theory that the United States was built upon is based upon human nature and the fact that people will take better care of things when they own it, or ‘have skin in the game’. We have moved away from this theory. The United States government now spends more than ½ of the entire GDP of our country.

President Carter is an excellent example of this ideology. During the election in 1976 the U.S. was in recession. When debating then President Ford, Jimmy Carter said: “The economy needs to be stimulated.” He delivered. The economy rebounded followed by a significant rise in inflation within a few years. The problem is that the basic economic theory of the country was changing.

The idea that you can spend your way out of recession and depression relies upon a basic amount of economic wealth present before the spending begins. We no longer have nearly as much wealth to draw upon as we have in years past.

President Obama is not listening

2011-07-13T04:15:00.000-07:00

I watched part of President Obama’s comments about the debt limit on CNBC yesterday. (7/11/11) I wish that I were more comfortable when I listen to our President. The way that he speaks is so calm and soothing that it gives the impression that he listens and actively considers all sides. But WHAT he says does not give this message at all.

I was particularly disturbed by his comments about the Republican resistance to his proposal to raise taxes. President Obama was implying that it was irresponsible for the Republican leadership to give in to the fringe elements within their party and hold a hard line against raising taxes. Accusations frequently can tell more about the accuser than the accused. The disdain he holds for the Republican actions was not hidden very well. Yet at the same time, is this not what he himself is doing?

The Republicans were elected saying that they would fight any and all tax increases. They are holding to their ideology. President Obama does not agree with this ideology and is fighting it to the best of his ability. Is this not what Republicans are doing as well? And it is irresponsible to fight for what they believe in? Disdain for others views and beliefs leads to lack of listening and a feeling of superiority. The passage of Health Care demonstrates how that very same leadership knows what is best for us. I have an idea: Why doesn’t he sign a bill that does what he wants and the public can figure out what it does later? Oh, because he needs help getting that bill on his desk. Now that is listening and consideration for the other views that conflict with his. No wonder our country is so divided.

To top all of this off, I thought that President Obama had saved us from falling off an economic cliff? That in 2009 when the ‘stimulus’ bill was signed that we were saved from the disaster that had been left to him by ex-President Bush? Now we face a new economic disaster if the debt ceiling is not raised? And of course, President Obama knows the right thing to do, better than those who hold opposing views. This is why he is fighting all the way to the end and may have to enact the 14th amendment, in order to get around the ‘irresponsibility’ of the Republicans. Only if he can’t get enough of what he deems necessary. After all, extreme situations call for extreme measures. That economic cliff has come back and we just may have a constitutional crisis on our hands in order to deal with it. I guess the ‘fix’ in 2009 was only temporary. Like so many other ‘solutions’ that our government offers. This economic cliff is because of ex-President Bush and the Republicans. After all, their economic policies are ‘irresponsible’.

I understand the concerns about the limits on the national debt. I understand why many believe that it should be raised. I am willing to make a deal in that limits upon spending and taxes are mandatory with any allowance in raising the debt ceiling. My views are in conflict with our President. And I am irresponsible for pressuring my representatives to fight for my viewpoint? I have another idea:

Why does the House not pass a bill that gives me what I want and President Obama can figure out what it does after he signs it? This is why I have dug in on my viewpoint. Not because I am unwilling to compromise. It is because I am unwilling to compromise with the Obama administration. If you don’t listen, you can’t continue to expect the other side to listen. The backlash from the Obama administration and what it has been doing has not really even begun yet. You know what they say about payback. It can be a real bitch.

The Republic is in danger

2011-07-09T06:13:00.000-07:00

“We need to pass this bill (Health Care) so that YOU can find out what is in it”.

This is the corrected quote. I had mistakenly inserted US instead of YOU. As my wife pointed out, the change is actually for the worse.

So if and when the Republicans get the White House, the Senate and the Congressional House, they can pass a bill that changes Social Security in any way that they want and the public (YOU) can figure it out later. How about a bill that enforces the law that property owner’s votes are worth 5 and non-property owners are worth 1? After all, property owners have ‘skin in the game’. YOU can find out what the bill says after it is passed. Just think of the possibilities! WE can pass whatever WE want. No need to listen to YOU, as WE really know what is best.

Silly example, but dangerous. This is why I say that the republic is in danger like we have not seen since the U.S. Civil War. And I don’t hear anyone talking about how we are all getting along. (Democrats and Republicans) I get lots of agreement when I say that I have never seen our country so badly divided. The fighting at the state level (Wisconsin representatives walking out of the state is only one example) is only an example of what is happening at the federal level.

I thought that President Obama was going to ‘reach across the aisle’? That compromise and listening to each other would bring in a new era of cooperation?

This should not really be a surprise. When how you speak appears to be moderate and at the same time, what you are saying is NOT moderate, not listening followed by digging in then followed by fighting should be expected.

Rome

2011-07-07T05:15:00.000-07:00

The U.S. is going the way of Rome

A subject this large would take many volumes. This post can only be a very general summary at best. These are only a few general subjects designed to stimulate thought.

I have noticed many similarities between the Roman republic and the United States. As with any comparison, many differences also exist. What I find most compelling is how human nature led the Roman evolution. So too the United States. One thing that does NOT change is Human nature.

Rome became the most rich and powerful government in the world at that time. Once it attained that stature, it began to turn upon itself. It began with the economic decline caused mainly by changing the fundamental economic principals that had been proven so successful. Priorities changed. People became less concerned about building and more concerned about protecting what they already had. The values that had proved vital to the building of the economy and army changed over time. We have all read about how the decadence in Rome became part of it’s undoing. Too much free time allows for deviant behavior. When it becomes acceptable, it becomes part of the problem.

One major difference between the U.S. today and Rome is that throughout it’s history, Rome protected the property owners. This is one of the reasons why it lasted for so long. The leadership understood where the source of economic strength originated and attempted to protect it. We are not doing so today. We are penalizing property owners at our economic peril. Rome did go though periods like this and many times these periods saw marked declines in economic and military power.

Exposure of babies on the mountainside was a preferred way of rid one of unwanted babies. Abortion provides us with a modern way to do this without having to go through childbirth. (Romans did not have the medical ability to do this without killing the woman.) The avoidance of responsibility in this most important human function was a contributing reason for the eventual decline and fall of the civilization. This was eventually outlawed, although it was common for long periods of time. The key here is the avoidance of responsibility for ones actions. After all, who really wants to pay for their mistakes? It is only natural to attempt to minimize the cost of any action that you take.

The Roman army became less and less Roman as time went on. In general, this was in step with avoiding responsibility as Romans paid others to do their work for them. This kept the numbers in the army up and maintained strength for a long time. A long-term problem is that like economics, if you have no skin in the game, your interests are different. Sometimes it was politically profitable to obtain a military defeat.

All civilizations evolve. They change over time and like everything alive, they eventually die. Civilizations like Rome come around only once in a while. While the United States is very different from the Roman republic, the thing that we share is that we are human.

Syria

2011-07-02T09:47:00.000-07:00

The silence from the White House about Syria is deafening. Maybe President Obama is working behind the scenes. With the involvement in Libya about defending the ‘innocent’ civilian population, I would have thought that the violence going on in Syria today would show up on President Obama’s radar screen. More importantly, Syria is a sponsor of international Islamic terrorism. Not to mention how Syria is linked to Iran, another sponsor of Islamic terrorism. And now Turkey is threatening to engage in open conflict with Syria. This is a far more dangerous situation that what was about to transpire in Libya, (The crushing of the rebels) yet we hear and see nothing.

I suspect that at least part of the reason is that Syria is a much more dangerous opponent that Libya. It is always wise to assess your potential enemy in relation to your interests. However, with the draw down in Iraq, Afghanistan and the minor amount of involvement in Libya, the United States has additional forces that would be available if needed. I doubt that lack of forces is a deciding factor. It must be something else.

I have been saying for many years now that the beginning of ending the war against Islamic nationalism and terrorism begins with ending the current governments of Iran and Syria. These are two of the largest state sponsors. President Obama obviously disagrees. Unless he is doing things behind the view of the public, he is taking the opposite course. At this point, all I can say is that time will tell.

Spread the wealth

2011-06-29T05:42:00.001-07:00

On a national level, the idea that wealth should be shared and spread around so that everyone can benefit seems likes a moral thing to do. However, it flies in the face of human nature. We are not the same. Our talents are all different. Our strengths and weaknesses are different. Our ability to adapt and prosper differs. This is why capitalism works better than any other system. It allows for all of this and actually enhances individual productivity. At the same time, seeing as we are all different, it only stands to reason that some would actually prosper in a more hostile environment, such as a dictatorship or a centrally planed economy. It would only be reasonable that they would see less freedom as being good because it IS good for them and the skill sets they posses. I am afraid that I have known some personally. Spread the wealth would fit into their skill set very well.

An extreme example:

Everyone has heard about the ‘mountain man’ who hoards food and water and medical supplies as if the world economy is going to sink tomorrow. I don’t know any personally, but I would imagine that they would have to spend a fair amount of money. I would also think that they would have to spend a fair amount of energy and time planning. The items would take up space, so they would have to provide for this as well.

Lets say that a famine or natural disaster occurs that disrupts enough of the area to actually begin starvation and all of the disease that are the direct result of starvation. In the military, in those situations an accounting is held and all supplies are accounted for and allocated based upon apparent need. What about the civilian sector? Would the government have the right to go into this ‘mountain mans’ home and/or property and take what it deems the man does not need for the betterment of the rest of the people?

Historically, since the foundation of our country, the answer would have been ‘NO’! But ‘spread the wealth’ ideology would insist that everyone should get an equal chance to eat. But what about the fact that this guy lived for years as a laughing stock and gave up time, energy and resources in the effort to protect himself from something like this? Capitalism would say that if this man has any extra, he would be well within his rights to sell off any excess at any price he can get. Heck, he can even burn it all if he wanted to.

This is the crux of the balance of freedom of economy and political freedom. “Spread the wealth” sounds like the ‘level the playing field argument’. It sounds like a good thing to do. However, it is easily turned into a source of power. I suspect that more people are motivated here for political and personal gain as opposed to some noble cause. This is precisely why capitalism works better than ANY other economic system devised by man. It channels the drive for gain into productive and constructive endeavors. Government does not do this nearly as effectively or efficiently. Government is a ‘one size fits all’ that will not go away when installed. “Spread the wealth” is another term for ‘destroy wealth’ because that is what it ultimately does. Some do benefit, but the majorities are out of luck, just like the old Soviet Union.

The Health Care debate (Or lack of it)

2011-06-25T04:30:00.000-07:00

I would like to thank Anonymous for so many contributions in these discussions. (I am assuming that the recent comments by Anonymous were made by one person. In any case, thank you.)

Anonymous left the following comment earlier this week:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cbo-well-only-have-giant-deficits-if-congress-wants-giant-deficits/2011/05/19/AG3w7pfH_blog.html

data directly from the Congressional Budget Office sited on the blog.

The republicans (I am including Clinton in the economic arena) have been in power for over 30 years. Our national debt has increase from under 1 trillion to just over 14 trillion. Why would we possibly want to repeat history? And why would change not be welcomed?

Evidence suggesting there was not passage of the Affordable Health Care Act against the will of the people:
CNN poll 2010:Of ten polls conducted just prior to the passage of the bill, three found about equal opposition and support, five found a plurality expressing opposition, and two found a majority expressing opposition.[109] The differences could have been caused by context and phrasing of the questions; for example, support for mandates was 56 to 59% when subsidies were mentioned for those who could not afford insurance but 28% when penalties were mentioned.[109] Some ideas which showed majority support, such as purchasing drugs from Canada, limiting malpractice awards, and reducing the age to qualify for Medicare, were not enacted.[109]
Polls conducted for CNN probed the reasons for opposition to the bill and found that while many people opposed the bill for being too liberal, a number of people opposed the bill for not being liberal enough. In March 2010 a CNN poll of 1,030 adult Americans probed opinions about the bill and its relative liberalness. It found that 43% of respondents opposed the bill for being too liberal, and 39% supported the bill and 13% opposed it on the grounds that it was not liberal enough.[110][111] The identical question when asked in December 2010 found that 37% opposed the bill for being too liberal, 43% supporting the bill and 13% opposing it on the grounds of being not liberal enough.[112]

March of 2011:A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation in March 2011 found that repeal was favored by 39% of the public and opposed by 51%.[125] Supporters of repeal were divided almost evenly over whether the law should be replaced with a Republican-sponsored alternative. Among opponents of repeal, three-fifths wanted the law expanded, while two-fifths wanted to keep it without change.[125]

This bill was not passed against the will of the american people. If anything it was a split. After passage and people found out what was actually in the law the numbers against repeal have gone up consistently. Moreover, there are a fair amount of people who wanted more (public option).

End comment

Prior to passing the Health Care bill, the American public was learning more about the bill as time went on. And it was becoming more and more against it as information began coming in from when discussion began in July of 2009 until passage in February of 2010.

At that point: "We have to pass this bill so that we can find out what is in it." It was obvious the bill needed more study simply because the sponsors COULD not know what the implications of the bill are. How could they? They did not even know what was in it. The Health Care system of the United States is calculated to be about 17% of entire private sector of our economy. The bill was passed because they knew that time was not on their side. This is why it was pushed through. This is responsible government? Not even knowing what the implications of what it is doing in order to accomplish its political goal? The ends justify the means? And we are speaking of just under 1/5 of our entire economy. Not exactly a small issue.

On top of this, the Democrats also knew that once passed, it would be virtually impossible to repeal. It will take just about dictatorial power to completely get rid of it. Go ahead and attempt to fire the people who have been hired already. Any organization that can’t fire people is going to have serious fiscal problems. And don’t tell me that they do not know this. February of 2010 was their best chance and they took it. And it is a one-way trip that was not fully understood? This is why I say that the American people were against it.

The backlash from this has not even begun yet. You fight wars over this type of stuff. This has opened a door that can easily jeopardize the republic. I never thought it possible that I would see the loss of the republic in American. I figured we were still a hundred years off. Now it IS possible. Why should Republicans not do the same with their pet projects like privatizing Social Security? They don’t even have to know what they are doing! How about getting rid of it altogether? And it certainly will not stop there.

By the way, you place too much faith in government accuracy. The IRS is one of the most respected branches of government. (I suspect because of the power it wields) The OFFICIAL word is that you can expect to get an accurate answer only 60% of the time. I am certain that you know that the IRS is not accountable for ANY agent’s answers!

If any business were run like that, they would be broke before the week was out. I don't trust business all that much either, but the good thing is that when they screw up, they go bankrupt. That is how they are held accountable. Remember Anderson Consulting? Try doing this to ANY government agency for a mistake or screw up. So the results you rely on have a 60% chance of being correct. Not very convincing.

Flaws within Islam

2011-06-22T05:24:00.001-07:00

One of the laws in Islam is the penalty for leaving is death. This law has been enforced since the beginning of Islam. It is still a powerful influence today. In 2007 we saw in Afghanistan a man whom had converted to Christianity was sentenced to death. His execution was not enforced because of his ‘mental health’. Please research to confirm how entrenched this overall concept is. It does not stop here.

The overall idea is that once something is Muslim, it cannot revert back. This applies to land as well. This is why Israel is ‘occupying’ all of the land it sits upon. This is why the U.S. is ‘occupying’ Iraq and Afghanistan until we leave. This is why the U.S. was ‘occupying’ Saudi Arabia even though the Saudi government invited our troops in. This also extends into an attitude of general intolerance against anything non-Islamic, including other religions.

Islam recognizes NO other national entity EXCEPT itself. This places it in conflict with the parent government even where Islam is dominant and most of the laws are in agreement with Islamic law. Because Islamic law is so specific and rigid, many points of disagreement exist that can become issues as divisive as slavery during the U.S. Civil War. This combined with the penalty for leaving the faith cause divisions within Islam that cannot be easily resolved, if ever. (The Sunni and Shiite division is a classic example)

Islam is so totalitarian and suppresses so many natural human drives that anger is about the ONLY acceptable emotional outlet. Frustration is rampant throughout the Islamic world for many of these reasons. This can only turn to anger over time, as the inability to change and adapt can find no other outlet. While anger is an important part of courage, it can easily become counterproductive when not controlled. Mistakes are easily made when angry and can lead to violence.

The overall point is that Islam has some major structural flaws that lead to divisions that are not easily overcome, if ever. Because of these flaws, Islamic culture is prone to anger, which cause mistakes, counterproductive activity and violence. In addition, Islam does not mix well with its neighbors. Other national entities are constantly being attacked, in many ways. This cannot help Islam make anything but the most shallow of allies.

Islam has a good side as well, but these flaws are so important and pervasive that from an outside view, they overwhelm most if not all of the favorable aspects. From an internal viewpoint, these flaws prevent Islam from ever actually becoming the ‘house of peace’.

Reply

2011-06-18T17:14:00.000-07:00

Anonymous commented on my post about Chris Matthews.

Anonymous said...
"His idea of freedom apparently does not extend to economic freedom." Crazy talk. Specific examples please.

My reply:

Crazy talk? Do you mean to say that President Obama does NOT want to restrict private business? Or that President Obama does NOT believe that the government can allocate the national resources better than the private sector? And that by doing so, NOT restricting economic freedom?

Boeing. You will be unable to convince me that restriction of the choice of which state you can build a plant and do business in is NOT a restriction of economic freedom. If I wish to do business in New Jersey, that is my choice. If I wish to live in Kansas, that is my business.

This issue with Boeing is only one off the top of my head. The past 2 years is full of this type of stuff. I posted on the more general topic in my previous post.

Economic freedom

2011-06-18T04:16:00.001-07:00

Back in the late 1980’s I remember seeing that tax freedom day was May 15th. This was the date of the year that you had paid your FEDERAL tax. In other words, you have worked all year up to May 15th paying your federal tax. For the rest of the year you can work for yourself. OH! Forgot about State and local taxes! Counting State and local taxes, the freedom date was determined to be about one month later. In percentage terms, 44% of the average income was taxed. In the year 1900, this figure was less than 1 percent.

The Health Care system in the United States IS the last great economic engine our country has. We have led the world for over a century in innovation and technological breakthroughs. This system is calculated to be about 18% of the private sector economy of the United States. Combined with the actions of the Federal government concerning the automobile industry and the banking system, the percentage of the private sector of our economy that was taken over by the government within the two year period of 2009 and 2010 totaled more than 47%. Naturally, this takeover is not complete nor is it immediate. It will be decades before the full effect of this will be felt.

The takeover of the health care system of this country by the government is a severe restriction of economic freedom. Don’t think so?

My Mother-in-law is 86 years old. Over the past 5 years, she has had both hips replaced. Her mobility and life have taken a huge jump for the better. Do you really believe that the Health Care system that is going to go into effect over the next 5 years or so would actually spend that kind of money on a 86 year old woman? They will supply her with painkillers and dope her up. This is what we have to look forward to. And when we get there, it will be far too late to reverse.

I do not know what the tax freedom date is today. I can tell you this: If things remain as they are today, the Federal government takeover of so much of the private economy can only severely reduce economic choices that U.S. citizens enjoy today. Economic freedom is what made America great. This is why we revolted from England in the first place. Taxation without representation was THE major issue. The overriding of the U.S. public resistance to government takeover of the health care system is placing our republic in jeopardy in more than one way.

What can stop the Republicans from privatizing Social Security once they obtain a majority that Democrats enjoyed in February 2010? Better yet, just repeal it. How about repealing Medicare and Medicaid? Why do we need to listen to the American public anymore now that they don’t understand what is good for them? The passing of the health care bill over the wishes of the American people is responsible. We can expect far more extreme actions from our government against our wishes. This is NOT freedom.

Chris Matthews

2011-06-14T04:27:00.000-07:00

This afternoon, (6/9/11) Chris Matthews stated that the Republicans should publicly state that “Obama is just as American as you and I.”

First thing was that Chris Matthews did NOT say PRESIDENT Obama. Chris Matthews said only his last name. President Obama is the President of the United States and should and WILL obtain the respect that the office holder deserves. Republicans understand this better than Democrats do. Just look at how Democrats have mocked past Republican Presidents.

Second: Why is it necessary for ANY Republican to say this? I suspect that Chris Matthews is requiring this statement because of what President Obama is. I disagree. I believe that the question of President Obama being an American is being called into question because of what President Obama is doing. Just because Christ Matthews agrees with President Obama and believes that the state should control the economy and the fact that this concept is NOT American? (In fact, opposite) Or perhaps because President Obama is shunning our allies and embracing our enemies overseas that we conservatives question his patriotism? Or is it because President Obama has provided so limited data about himself, including his birth certificate? Or is it possibly because of so many incidents where President Obama is apparently not respectful of the U.S. flag and other symbols of the U.S.? Or can it possibly be because of all of this?

I question President Obama’s commitment to values that we Americans have held since our inception. His idea of freedom apparently does not extend to economic freedom. He disagrees with me, fine. But it is not just disagreement that is the problem. I disagree with plenty of people and get along with them. Those individuals do not hate me. President Obama is prejudiced against people like me. “I do not know all of the facts, but the police acted stupidly.” I must admit, I do hold my own prejudices. (I am a BEARS fan) But I do not hate him because of what he is. I hate what he is DOING. And I certainly do not need to state that PRESIDENT Obama is as American as you and I. I do not need to state it simply because he is the PRESIDENT of our country. Something that Chris Matthews does not seem to understand: Respect for the holder of that office.

Fairness doctrine

2011-06-09T13:27:00.001-07:00

I understand why the desire to have a ‘level playing field’ is so prevalent in U.S. society. We Americans like to believe that anyone can rise to his/her highest level of ability if given the opportunity. A major problem with this ideology is that life is not even, nor is it fair. Not that we can’t live in a society that offers more opportunity than any other and that this system can’t be improved. However, to make anything but the most basic attempts is foolhardy as it goes against human nature. We are NOT equal. None of us are. I would like to take this to an extreme.

To really, truly implement ‘fairness’, we will need to supply all other countries and organizations the equipment and training that our armed forces receives. This would come much closer to making the battlefield a more ‘level playing field’. So we would lose far more personnel in any future war than we would otherwise because we fight ‘fair’. That type of self-sacrifice is admirable, if it were not so stupid. Clearly, fairness must have limits.

Today, we have the most extreme President that has ever held the office. One of his most ambitious goals is to remake American society so that it is more ‘fair’ and has a ‘level playing field’ for everyone. From what I have seen of his foreign policy, I believe that he is attempting to do this with the rest of the world as well. The result can only be a massive deterioration in the position of the United States relative to the rest of the world. I am certain that our President does not see this as being bad. It is actually just and will ‘level the playing field’ to everyone’s advantage. The thinking goes that maybe some will not be so well off in the near future, but the overall effect will eventually be to the majority’s benefit.

Would you give away all of your assets to help in this cause? I am sorry, but no way in hell will I agree to any such thing. This goes against human nature and certainly punishes those who have exceptional gifts. You can’t treat everyone the same, because they are NOT. This is like attempting to make all sports teams equal. It can’t be done all that well and to do so defeats the purpose of the game itself. Attempting to Make everyone and everything equal is inviting disaster. This applies to all levels of human interaction, be it social, economic or political.

I just hope that we can get through the next 2 years without paying the full price for the folly of our President and his leadership.

2011-06-04T04:36:00.000-07:00

Benjamin Netanyahu

Benjamin Netanyahu was heckled during his speech to Congress and replied that “This is democracy.” He added that no nation in that region allows for this type of expression except for Israel. He also said:

“You don’t need to do nation building in Israel, it is already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel, we already have it. You don’t need to send U.S. soldiers to Israel, we DEFEND ourselves.”

This is a statesman. I wish we could pick leaders like this. (We used to be able to)

Can we get him a Hawaiian birth certificate? (A friend passed this one to me, I could not pass it up)

This says it all

2011-06-01T03:33:00.001-07:00

More on REWARDING GOOD FOR EVIL: 16 Important Facts About Jews, Arabs and Israel ...
* Posted by Terminator Girl on May 22, 2011 at 9:23am in General, Town Hall

1. Israel became a state circa 1030 B.C., more than two millennia before Islam.

2. Arabs from Israel first began to be called “Palestinians” in 1967 by Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders, two decades after modern Israeli statehood.

3. After conquering the land in about 1250 B.C., Jews ruled it for more than 1,300 years and have maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years.

4. For over 3,000 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. It was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even under Jordanian rule, (East) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it.

5. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur’an.

6. King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it.

7. Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. If they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem.

8. In 1948, Arab leaders urged their people to leave, promising to cleanse the land of Jewish presence—some 70% of them fled without ever being ordered by Israel to leave, most of those without ever having seen an Israeli soldier.

9. Virtually the entire Jewish population of Muslim countries had to flee as the result of violence and pogroms.

10. Some 650,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948, while about 850,000 Jews were forced to leave Muslim countries.

11. In spite of the vast territories at their disposal, Arab refugees from Palestine were deliberately prevented from assimilating into their host countries. Of 100 million refugees following World War II, they are the only group to have never integrated with their coreligionists. Most of the Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands were settled in Israel, a country no larger than New Jersey.

12. There are 22 Arab countries (with 800 times the land mass of Israel), not counting the Palestinian territories. There is only one Jewish state. Arabs started all five wars against Israel, and lost every one of them.

13. The Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction of Israel. Israel has agreed under several proposals to cede most of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, and even supported the arming of its police force after the Oslo Accords in 1993.

14. During the Jordanian occupation, Jewish holy sites were vandalized and were off limits to Jews. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian holy sites are accessible to all faiths and maintained in good order at Israel’s expense.

15. Out of 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions up to 1990, 97 were against Israel; out of 690 General Assembly resolutions, 429 were against Israel;

16. The U.N. was silent when the Jordanians destroyed 58 synagogues in the old city of Jerusalem. It remained silent while Jordan systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and it remained silent when Jordan enforced apartheid laws preventing Jews from accessing the Temple Mount and Western Wall (Kotel).

Israel and 'occupation'

2011-05-26T04:17:00.000-07:00

This is part of the Arab reaction to the Prime Minister of Israel’s speech. They rejected it and called it a declaration of war.

“We must work to adopt an Arab and Palestinian strategy based on the right of resistance."

They are speaking of violent resistance. This reaction IS a declaration of war. By whom? They are not a national government. This is Islamic nationalism at work. Declaration of war is the function of a nation-state, not a religion. This is why Israel 'occupies' land that no other sovereign government claims. Islam is also fielding an army to resist its enemies. Imams frequently field their own militias. This is a central point as to the cause of the violence and warfare in the first place. Religions can't be acting like national governments anymore.

This war is BIG. All that needs to happen now is for WMD to make an appearance. And this is only a matter of time.

President Obama is no friend of Israel

2011-05-24T05:27:00.000-07:00

The Middle East ‘peace’ effort is to implement borders being adjusted to what Israel was in 1967. The gap from withdrawal of Israeli ‘occupation’ would allow for room for the new state of Palestine. If Israel does not withdraw, according to international law; Israel would then be occupying a sovereign nation.

How can this NOT start a war?

Why is the 1967 border so important? Why not 1917? Why go into the past at all? Is this not why wars are fought in the first place? I had thought that wars are fought to decide the issue. Otherwise, wars are not worth waging. In that case, why not today’s border?

1967 was the only Arab-Israeli war begun with an Israeli offensive. It was the 3rd of 4 major wars. Going back to 1967 is to set things right. Now we have the moral high ground. Who are we kidding?

When the shooting starts, you find out who your real friends are. Whose side are we on? We are certainly happy to jeopardize Israeli lives, while holding our own so dear as to withdraw from active contact with our enemies. This is not being even handed; it is taking the other side.

In the Muslim world, we are considered to be in the house of war. (The other house, the ‘house of peace’ is the areas under Islamic control) The definition of ‘innocent’ is Muslim. ‘Guilty’ is everything else. Islamic law is about as different from our system as can be imagined. Just look at Rape. Rape is certainly not defined in Islamic law in any way near our definition. According to Muslim law, a man may take his wife against her will. A woman who is not married is ‘public property’. A large percentage of Muslims believe that Islamic law allows a man to beat his wife. And this is only part of the picture. Physical violence is much less discouraged within Muslim culture. Few emotions are allowed, anger being one that is OK to express publicly. And now this culture will obtain a new national status where land is internationally recognized as ‘occupied’. This is a far cry from “Occupied Muslim land”. It can be compared to the occupation of France by Germany, 1940-1944.

Islam has been and is today fielding an army. By granting statehood in this way, we will be giving Islamic ‘soldiers’ a uniform, a flag, a national government and the ability to declare war though internationally recognized means. One of the big advantages in fighting terrorism is that they do not have a state. Like dealing with pirates, countries have many options as to what they can do with captured terrorists. Statehood will remove much of this advantage when fighting Islamic terrorism. Why do we wish to do this? And we will be doing this at Israeli expense. Some friend and ally we are.

We are losing the war

2011-05-18T05:34:00.000-07:00

The prison system in the United States is under attack. A new settlement in Virginia requires the system to provide Islamic materials, additional time and room so that Muslims can practice their ‘religion’. This is the worst place on earth to allow the study of a totalitarian governmental system that most prisoners can identify with already.

Hamas and Fatah are making deals. Lots of pressure on Israel to allow for a Palestinian state. We are seeing massive unrest and confusion throughout the Middle East. Is Democracy breaking out all over? Historical cultural patterns indicate no such thing. It is likely that any government of a new Palestinian state will be openly hostile to Israel and the United States. After the failure of Oslo, it can be seen that creation of a new Palestinian state could easily bring about a new Arab-Israeli war.

On top of this, I have never seen our country so divided. Our divisions today are worse than our division during the Vietnam War. Historically speaking, I believe this is the worst division since the U.S. Civil War. Our government overrides the American public in installing a socialist heath care system that basically takes a large percentage of the private economy and will nationalize it. My natural reaction is to order my representatives to MAKE NO DEALS! Lot’s of lines in the sand type stuff that will only result in deadlock. I would rather have deadlock than any more ‘CHANGE’ like we saw in February 2010. Wars are caused because of issues like this.

It is becoming much more difficult to make money in the U.S. today. This can only drive capital outside of our country’s border, as investment in other countries becomes more desirable than within the U.S. Spread the wealth around? Lets take all of the wealth of the United States and spread it around the world. Wars have been fought over more trivial issues than this. And who wants to deliberately damage the economy of the United States?

The United States is on the strategic defensive. Withdrawal and draw down of forces are the order of the day. Our enemies are much better at attacking shopping malls than our military. So if our enemies aren’t sustaining as much loss, where are the resources going? They will let us know when they are ready. This is NOT winning the war. On any front: Economic, ideological or militarily.

Michigans emergency law

2011-05-14T03:27:00.000-07:00

Now the governor of Michigan can fire (And replace without elections) elected officials of local governments whose fiscal problems allow for ‘emergency’ intervention. This is a centralization of power that is a natural reaction to the fiscal policies that are destroying our country.

Democrats see (Accurately) that this is why Republicans are dangerous. This reaction IS a step in the direction of totalitarianism. What they fail to see is how their fiscal policies are the cause. This begins with the idea that government can allocate the resources of the nation better than the individual. The way that you do this is to tax private resources until very little is left. Outright nationalizing of industry is the final step. The political advantages of doing so are very real.

The problem is that centralization of economic activity takes away the major incentive of American ingenuity. A major reason why the United States has such a large share of world inventions is because we can directly benefit from them. This is why socialist countries lag in inventiveness. My son told me that the definition of communism is that everyone is treated the same. It sounds like a good idea. OK, let’s pay everyone the same. A doctor who is operating on you is paid the same as a factory worker? Think the quality will be higher? Think again. The problem is that our shift toward a centralized economy has moved so rapidly in the past 2 years that fiscal crises are beginning to crop up. In order to get these under control; power needs to be centralized. It is a cycle that I do not believe can be broken. The best way would be to exercise fiscal responsibility, which the American public has not wanted in generations. Extreme situations call for extreme measures. We have created our own extreme financial situation. And now we will see the extreme measures and responses

The war is over

2011-05-10T04:29:00.001-07:00

President Obama has announced how the U.S. will begin to stand down in Afghanistan and allow the Afghan forces to take up the fight. Now that Osama Bin Laden is dead, the war is over for the United States. We should withdraw from Afghanistan and end it now. Although I did not expect us to get Bin Laden, I have expected President Obama to withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the election cycle of 2012. The death of Bin Laden is a great reason and excuse to execute what I believe was a priority of President Obama during his first term of office. The problem is that this is not the end of the war.

Osama Bin Laden believed himself to be a soldier of Islam. (Although I do not think of him as having been a ‘soldier’, strictly speaking, he was a soldier of Islam) He believed that Islam is a sovereign entity and acted upon it. He believed in ‘occupied’ Muslim land and Muslim ‘waters’. Notice how no nation would accept his body. Even Iran wanted nothing to do with his body, except for insisting that the body be treated in Muslim tradition. Bin Laden had no real nationality except for an Islamic caliphate. He believed in the national entity of Islamic government and was an Islamic nationalist. This belief is by no means uncommon, although he was more extreme than many and had plenty of resources to be able to act upon those beliefs. This is where the war begins. Take Iraq for example.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was resisted by not only the Iraqi military/population. After the fall of the Iraqi government, Iraq became ‘occupied’ Muslim land. Therefore, those who believed in Islamic sovereignty fought the United States ‘occupation’. Bin Laden’s forces were actually a minority of those that were deployed against our military. I am not referring to nationalist Iraqis. I consider Sadr to be one of those who fought for Islam, not Iraq. Sadr was an Imam who fielded his own militia to repel the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim lands. The army of Islam was mobilized, much the same as those armies of the Middle Ages had been, and how Islam has historically fielded its armies. Another case in point: Israel.

Arabs don’t really care about the Palestinians by themselves. Otherwise, they would accept the Palestinians within their own countries. They do not because they want to use them to fight the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim lands. In other words, Israel is ‘occupying’ land that Islam had controlled in the past. This is why no peace can be found without the destruction of Israel. A problem here is that even if the land that Israel is on does revert to Muslim control, the war will not be over.

By withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States is not challenging the sovereignty of Islam. Because so many believe in Islam as a national entity, they will continue to wage war against us. The war will only move on to other places where Islamic nationalism conflicts with modern nation-states.

Osama Bin Laden and the changing story

2011-05-06T04:28:00.000-07:00

Servo96 on townhall blog summed it up well:

There was a firefight.
Osama "resisted."
There wasn't a firefight.
Osama' daughter says he was captured alive and shot dead.
Osama was armed.
No, he wasn't.
Osama didn't have to be armed to "resist."
The team was supposed to take him alive if possible.
No, it was always a 'kill' mission.
No, they were going to take him alive until the chopper was shot down.
No, it crashed and blew up.
No, it had mechanical trouble and the team blew it up themselves.
Osama lived without TV, Internet or phone.
No, there was clearly a big satellite dish on the building.
Osama had a cell phone on him.
We found a 'treasure trove' of media and intel.
Osama hid behind a woman and she was killed.
The woman was his wife.
No, it was some other woman downstairs.
No, his wife ran at the team and got shot in the leg.
Osama's son was killed.
No, it was some other guy.
Leon Panetta said a photo of Osama would be released soon.
No, President Obama, during an interview taped for “60 Minutes”, said it won't be released.

As pleased as I am to hear that Osama is dead, I am disturbed about the way the story of his death is changing so much. Conflicting information is not uncommon in wartime, so it is not be surprising that we might get different accounts from different sources. For example, the daughter is saying things that conflict with our soldier’s account. This is almost a natural expectation. Not only is the viewpoint different, but motivation is strong to present the events in a different light. What is disturbing is that the ‘official’ information from Washington is changing so much. I would expect that our government would take the time to make certain that the information is accurate before it is released. Naturally, mistakes can be made. But the quantity of the changes here do not give me confidence that our government is being completely honest with us.

I really want to believe that Osama Bin Laden is dead. I also want to believe our government is telling us the actual facts as much as security can allow. This administration was to be the most transparent in a long time, if ever. This ‘incident’ does not give me much confidence that we are actually being told the accurate story. This also brings into question my confidence about other issues that this administration is addressing and what it is telling the American public. Even though I might disagree with him, I want to think that at least President Obama actually believes what he is telling us.

Osama Bin Laden

2011-05-03T05:28:00.001-07:00

In general, I do not wish death upon anyone. It happens soon enough for all of us. However, I do make a few exceptions. Osama Bin Laden is one of them. Mass murderers (including terrorists) are my general exception. So I am pleased to hear about his death. Even though I believe that this is good for the United States, it comes at a cost.

Many people will think that the war is now over and we should exit the region. In general, these same people do not understand what the issues are that are causing the wars. Why did Bin Laden attack us in the first place? It must be believed that only he and his relatively small group hold the ideology behind the reasons that they wanted to destroy the U.S. Pakistan is a good case in point.

Pakistan is a divided country. Many people within Pakistan believe as Bin Laden did. This explains why it took so long to find him. Even within the government, many were protecting him. I am actually surprised that we were able to pull it off. It is a good sign that we were able to take this type of action within Pakistan itself. What is troubling is the fact that Pakistan is not the only country where we see this problem.

Just about every country in the Middle East has this issue. Just look at Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and Iraq, just to name a few. Islamic nationalism is alive and well. (Look at the militias that were generated within Iraq after our invasion. Many fought to repel the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim ‘lands’. ) In fact, with the deal that Hamas and Fatah are working on, our enemies are looking to be more alive and united than ever in my lifetime. Bin Laden’s death may actually help in this. Just listen to what is being said about our action. After all, when the shooting starts, whose side would you take? It is only natural that many from that part of the world will side with Islamic ideology. And make no mistake. Hundreds of millions of people are believers in many of Islamic government concepts. This is where the war becomes so dangerous.

The war is NOT over. Our enemies are actually more united and powerful than I have seen in a long time. The war is coming here. It is already here to a small extent. Europe is far more advanced in this, and yet the United States is heading in the same direction, in a number of ways. We are on the strategic defensive. Bin Laden’s death was a tactical victory. It will not reverse the tide of the war, nor will his death end the war.

Palestinian factions announce reconciliation deal

2011-04-30T04:29:00.000-07:00

Fatah and Hamas are now attempting to work together.

The United States is more divided than I have ever seen in my lifetime. This, along with the poor relationship that the U.S. now has with it’s closest allies, England and Israel is a recipe for inaction towards objectives in our mutual interest. At the same time our enemies throughout the Middle East are more united than I have ever seen. Care to guess where HAMAS and Fatah will direct their shooting if they stop shooting at each other?

I don’t know if this is because our President is such a poor leader that this is occurring despite his intentions, or if it is because our President wants to CHANGE us so drastically that he embraces many of the concepts that are against us in the region. He must believe in a concept of encouraging a united Islamic entity to enable the Palestinians to not feel so downtrodden and helpless that should lead to greater stability. (I disagree with this, but I can see how others might not)

In either case, we are in for BIG trouble. We can only expect our enemies to gain strength and ability. We are fighting a defensive war. Our enemies now choose the battlefield. It can only be a matter of time before we get really walloped. And 9/11 will only be considered a warm up.

President Obama and I disagree on what makes America great

2011-04-27T04:12:00.000-07:00

“‘There but for the grace of God go I,’ we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities,” Obama said. “We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.”

I must disagree. These commitments are quite selfish. They concern only Americans and those who live here. I believe our greatness goes far beyond this self centered view. Like the inventions we are responsible for. Just a short list of the innumerable:

1) The cotton gin
2) The reaper
3) The phonograph
4) The telephone
5) Electric light bulb
6) The AIRPLANE
7) Refrigeration
8) Atomic power
9) The computer
10) All of the medical advances the U.S had pioneered throughout the 20th century. This is still an area of strength today.

These inventions along with countless others, have improved the lives of all MANKIND, not just Americans.

Yes, I disagree with President Obama on a lot of things. This one really, really gets me. The United States would not be a great country if government entitlement programs to Americans were not available? My values certainly are different from President Obama’s. He may think that he knows what is best for us. However, he certainly does not understand why our country’s contributions to mankind occurred. And he is working very hard to CHANGE it.

Health Care and Social Security

2011-04-23T04:37:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I used the figure that 70% of Americans were against the Health Care bill. Let’s not get hung up on the 70%. I heard this figure batted around conservative talk radio for a few weeks around the time of the Health Care bill being passed in February 2010. The point is that figures like this can be manipulated just about anyway that you want. Sorry, I assumed (You know what this makes me, right?) that readers understand this. I use this figure to get attention on the importance of this issue and to demonstrate that resistance to passage was as great if not greater than a number of failed bills in the past.

The point that I was attempting to make is that the Health Care bill was about as popular as it was the last time it was attempted in the early 1990’s. President Clinton backed off when he saw how unfavorable the public was receiving this potential law(s). In both cases, the Health Care bill was about as desired as the changes to Social Security was in the 1980’s and again in the early 2000’s.

My father told me back in high school (1972-1976) that Social Security would be broke before I could retire so don’t count on it for anything. If it paid out anything, you would be that much better off. It was already well known in the early 1970’s that Social Security had a dark future. The Republicans wanted to do something about this in the 1980’s. The public was solidly against any changes that were proposed. The Republicans came back to this issue in the early 2000’s and received the same response. The idea was dropped again.

In 2010, the public was against the massive Health Care bill once again. OK, lots of polling data tells us a lot of things. I watch not just Fox News. I also watch CNN, MSNBC and CNBC. I read articles written by both conservatives and liberals. (Note: I brought up a show of Rachel Maddow’s in my last post) I tend to agree with conservatives more. However, it is still obvious that the resistance to the Health Care bill of 2010 was every bit as solid as the resistance to proposed changes in Social Security (Both times) and to the resistance of the Health Care bill the first time proposed in the 1990’s. All three were dropped. In the case of the Health Care bill of 2010, the Democrats passed it anyway. President Obama signed it straight away. “This way, we will actually find out what is in the bill.”

This is NOT democracy. Our government is NOT listening to us. To use a different example: Let’s say that in 2012, Republicans score BIG. Let’s say they get massive majorities in both house and senate and an extremist in the White House. They propose a massive change to Social Security, far worse than what has been attempted the two previous times. And the public has not changed its mind and is just as firmly against change as the two times before. So the Republicans can do it anyway? Where the hell will this leave us? Our government knows better than we do, so why do we need to vote? (I recently saw a commentator on CNN talk about not allowing ‘ignorant’ people the ability to vote. A natural progression.)

You can argue about how strongly the American public was and is against the Health Care bill. You can’t argue that we were for it. The fighting going on today is one of the results. People don’t want to give in because they have seen what happened. Why the hell would you compromise on any issue after an event like this? Once again, we can thank President Obama and the Democrats for this lack of united action and the deep division within our country today.

President Obama

2011-04-19T16:24:00.000-07:00

When running for office, Senator Obama was supposed to be great at compromise. He was going to reach across to ‘the other side’ and get everyone to work together. This entire idea was not just to happen domestically. This was going to happen internationally as well as the U.S. opened itself to all and would get everyone working together to get along. This is NOT working out as planned.

While I cannot hold President Obama responsible for all of the international events that are going on today, I certain do hold him accountable for the lack of U.S. leadership in containing the unrest that is spreading throughout the Middle East. I feel that all of this ‘CHANGE’ is dangerous to not only the United States, but particularly to Israel. I believe that we are much closer to open war between Israel and Iran than ever before. Maybe I am wrong, but the ‘CHANGE’ approach concerning governments in the Middle East holds far more dangers to Israel and the United States than anyone else. And this is all international where President Obama’s CHANGE has less impact than domestic events.

I will use the example of the Health Care debate as a defining moment. This was passed and signed by President Obama despite the overwhelming majority of Americans being against passage of this bill. (70%, which is greater than the 2/3 majority required for a constitutional amendment.) This is a very poor example of our country’s leadership listening to the will of the people. With this as a guide, why do we need elections when our government knows better than we do? No wonder our country is so badly divided. In fact, it has not been this badly divided since the Civil War.

I saw Rachel Maddow talking about how succession is actually being discussed today. The last time around, it triggered the worst war in our history. Everywhere I look, I am seeing how our political leadership is not listening to each other. The fights over the budgets are as intense on the Federal and State levels as I have ever seen. We are not more united today than three years ago. In fact, we are far more polarized than I have seen since Vietnam. And today’s situation is worse because the polarization during Vietnam was mainly internal to the Democratic Party. Today, we are seeing the political battle between the two major parties.

President Obama claimed that he ‘saved’ our country from the brink of economic disaster when he signed the economic stimulus in 2009. The day after signing, he said that he walked outside and it was a nice day. The doomsday did not happen. Does he misunderstand what he is doing! Today, we are just beginning to see the real consequences of that act. Commodities are skyrocketing. Commodity price increases are generally early indicators of inflation. Many of us have been expecting something like this. Moody’s is considering downgrading it’s triple-A rating for U.S. treasury bonds. I am not the only person who is seeing these things. Sales of emergency supplies are running at record highs because so many others are also seeing this. President Obama did not save us from falling off a cliff. He has brought us to an economic one. The inflation that we saw back in the late 1970’s just may pale by comparison. We shall see, probably within the next 6 to 12 months. The other alternative is not much better. Draconian measures to curb spending that will significantly impact the economy in the short term. (This is the much better choice for the long term)

In any case, the United States is far more divided and polarized than I have ever seen before. As a conservative economist, I am alarmed at the potential consequences. So I expect a big political battle over spending and allocation of resources because I see us as having precious little to work with. As with dealing with unions, the Democrats appear to be completely unaware of the financial situation. So they fight back just as desperately, attempting to hold on to what they already have. This is a recipe for an all out battle, as we are seeing. Thank you, President Obama. The President who was going to bring us all together.

Warfare in General

2011-04-16T04:47:00.000-07:00

Some general concepts about warfare:

1) All wars are unique. Like fingerprints. The most common mistake (Generals can be just as guilty of this as everyone else) is to fight the prior war again. A classic example: The French building the Maginot line in the 1930’s.

2) Violence goes up as a war progresses. You get better at it. Weapons and tactics get better as well. New allies join the fray. People become more desperate. The loser in wars either cannot or will not match the new level of violence.

3) The three levels of viewing war:
a) Strategic
b) Operational
c) Tactical

4) Two basic type of warfare:
a) War of conquest – take care of population you occupy.
b) Punitive warfare – Wipe everyone and everything out.

5) Political considerations are generally counterproductive in warfare. Many examples of entire armies being wiped out because of political considerations.

6) Occupation: The occupiers are not the worst enemy of the occupied. The worst enemy is the population of the occupied who are working with the occupier.

7) Wars ALWAYS create new enemies.

8) Atrocities occur in ALL wars. The vast majority goes unreported, for obvious reasons. One of the cleanest wars in modern history was the German – Western Allies (England and United States) war 1940-1945. Many atrocities occurred even then. A direct relationship exists between atrocities and the training a unit has undergone. The more training a unit obtains before combat, the less atrocities committed by that unit. This applies to armies as well.

9) Cultural wars are the worst. What happened to the Native Americans is a classic example. Not only is language a difference, but the very habits a population have. In war, it is necessary to de-humanize the enemy. For example, if you shoot down an enemy airplane, or sink an enemy ship, you tell yourself that it was a machine. You attempt to deny that it contained people. This is a natural self-defense mechanism. After all, you are killing people. Cultural differences make this much easier. “A good Jap is a dead Jap”. For a number of reasons, when you found a wounded Japanese, you put a bullet in his head. Just to be sure. One potential side-effect from allowing suspected terrorists the same legal rights that United States citizens enjoy could be an increase in soldiers killing of potential prisoners. Many of the same motivations for ‘A good Jap is a dead Jap’ exist today in the war in Iraq. Vietnam had many examples of these motivations as well.

10) The longer a siege lasts, the more brutal the outcome. In general, this applies to wars as well.

Libya

2011-04-13T03:34:00.000-07:00

The longer the war goes on in Libya, the better it is for our enemies. This war is unlike Iraq and Afghanistan because we did not invade to topple the existing government. By doing so, we forced our enemies to take up arms directly against our military. In Libya, we are only taking sides in a civil war. Without our ground troops forcing the issue, our enemy is free to choose what side they wish to fight for. And we are taking the side that was about to be crushed, thereby prolonging the war indefinitely. If the US and our allies had not stepped in, the rebels would have been destroyed by now and the fighting over. As it is, control of the air has prevented government victory. At the same time, the rebels are not necessarily strong enough to defeat the government forces in open combat. This has all the signs of a prolonged stalemate. This is the worst case for the U.S.

If we are going to wage war and expend the resources necessary to do so, we should at least be certain of delivering body blows to our enemy. Our enemy is Islamic nationalism. By challenging Islamic authority or Islamic law openly with our military, we can force them to engage us. Conventional forces have a tremendous advantage when fighting irregular forces in combat. We can use that advantage when we force the enemy to attack us. By spending our resources on a sideshow we not only waste our time when time is not on our side, more importantly we direct our attention away from the vital issues that are the cause of the war.

President Obama and compromise

2011-04-09T04:14:00.000-07:00

A government shutdown is where the political parties were digging in. This is one of the points of contention and an excellent opportunity to show the sprit of compromise. In President Obamas’ talk earlier this week, he spoke about how being married required that you compromise. This has apparently given him the skills necessary to compromise when dealing with political issues.

It is generally accepted that a government shutdown would politically benefit President Obama and the Democrats more than it would the Republicans. So all they had to do was wait it out. Sooner or later, the Republicans would come around to some type of deal where they could save ‘face’. This is an excellent position to be in and certainly not one that would encourage compromise. So who gets the blame? The people who brought us to the brink of a government shutdown and who were unwilling to compromise until they saw defeat in front of them. Must be pretty dumb to let it get that far.

I thought that President Obama was supposed to unite us. We would all come together after he demonstrated his willingness to listen to the other side and make things work out. You know, like the Health Care bill. 70% of Americans were disenfranchised in that deal. (Enough to pass a constitutional amendment) Yes, President Obama and the Democrats really showed us how to compromise and listen. This ‘New deal’ is different, but not all that much.

This deal does not deal with the fundamental fiscal problems that this country faces. Like so many other deals in the past, it is only window dressing. This is actually a victory for President Obama and the Democrats. This deal just allowed us to continue doing ‘business as usual’. With the financial structure of the country in such dire need of ‘CHANGE’, all we get is more of the same. We can expect more of this confrontation when time comes to pass the next budget. And it will be the Republicans fault once again, simply because they are forced to attempt to place limits upon the free spending that President Obama (And Democrats) believe in. After all, who is saying that ‘We are NOT broke’? This is the issue: Republicans generally believe that the financial position of our country is at or near bankruptcy. Democrats see no such thing. Sounds a lot like the confrontation between unions and companies. (With the bankruptcy component not always present)

Our country is more divided and more partisan than ever. We have major conflicts within all levels of government today. Just look at the partisan politics going on at the state level today. We recently held a local election in my town and I am seeing much of the same, even at that level. Well, leadership does spring from the top. We are beginning to see the results of our presidential leadership. And it is not compromise and listening.

The 12th Imam

2011-04-06T04:18:00.000-07:00

What troubles me today is that so many things look like they can go wrong right now. We have all levels of our government in financial trouble; Europe is in financial trouble and lots of unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. I strongly believe that something is going to happen in the near future. (Meaning the next few years) Sooner or later, you pay a price for spending beyond your means. What is more immediate can occur this summer.

Since 9/11, I have been studying our enemy. It took me years to identify the ideology that is the cause. Political Islam or Islamic nationalism is what I believe is the basic problem. I don’t care about the religious aspect, but the nationalistic part of Islam is waging war against us. The good side is that Islam is badly divided. Within some of these divided groups, a new leader is supposed to emerge. I am speaking of the so-called 12th Imam.

I am not all that familiar with the 12th Imam. What I understand is that this entity will appear under certain conditions with a different leader playing a role that will pave the way for this Imam. The person who precedes this Imam is supposed to do three things:

1) Create chaos
2) Take Jerusalem
3) Bathe the world in blood

This predecessor of the 12th Imam is supposed to strike within the 72nd month of taking control or power.

I don’t believe in this type of stuff. Things happen because of nature, or because of human nature.

What is scary here is that the President of Iran just might believe he is the person who precedes the 12th Imam. This guy has spoken of many crazy things, but they do share the common idea that he just may believe that he is the guy that will fulfill the three prerequisites for the 12th Imam. He may believe that he can unite all of Islam. (I am speaking of the national entity) Of course, all of this might be BS. The President of Iran might not be able to do all that much. What I do know is that the President of Iran took office on August 2,2005. 72 months will have expired on August 2, 2011.

If the President of Iran DOES believe that he is the predecessor of the 12th Imam, I suspect that we will see an increase in activity (Both covert and openly) by Iran over the summer. I would expect the effort to peak sometime in August. Once again, IF any of this is accurate, it will only remain to see just how effective his actions will be.

Raise the debt ceiling?

2011-04-02T04:29:00.001-07:00

What would happen if the U.S. did not raise the debt ceiling? The U.S. would be unable to issue new bonds. If this were the case, the treasury would be forced to print a great deal more money. Hyperinflation (Already a danger) would become a reality. The economic shock that would result from this would be worldwide. The most productive economy in the world would begin to shut down as producers stopped production. The barter system could not possibly replace the dollar in the world economy and some other currency would have to become the worldwide reserve.

I am a firm believer that most wars have an economic origin. It was no coincidence that the greatest war in mankind's history was immediately preceded by the greatest economic downturn in man's history. By doing so, we could end up triggering a world war. After all, many parts of the world are more vulnerable than we are. We have a recession; some other countries go into a depression.

. In general principal, I am for stopping the rise in debt and a reversal of the government takeover of our economy. Maybe we need to be weaned off debt like a drug addict. A major problem here is that we live in a republic. We elect our leaders. (A bad sign here: Just look at who we have elected this last time) In other words, we will probably change our minds once things begin to change. Then we would elect new people to reverse the process.

Maybe we really do need to just take it. We will need to be prepared for disaster, although it will be less so than if we just allow things to continue. This is why I say that our republic is in danger. I don't believe that we have the political will anymore. We just may be forced into a situation where we have a leader who can just do it. An Agustus, if you will. Things would get much better, but absolute power will be impossible to remove.

Economic confrontation

2011-03-30T03:58:00.000-07:00

This is one of the crucial issues. Do you believe that the government can allocate the resources of our country better than the individual? If yes, then you are like my wife. A life long Democrat who does not understand that her way of life and standard of living are directly dependent upon implementation of this concept.

Conservatives believe that our country's history has proven that the resources of our country are allocated much more effectively and wisely when the individual owns 'skin in the game'. After all, humans will take much more care of a house if they own it, rather than someone else. This concept applies to just about ALL property.

I work retail. I see this every day. People open items and just toss the items back into the box. If they owned that item, they certainly would not treat it in anything like that manner. After all, when they purchase that very same item, it needs to be perfect and unopened. Only if they themselves opened it, would they purchase that item. When you lend something out, is it handled as well as you handle it? I doubt it. I make great efforts not to lend anything out for just this reason. I am VERY selective whom I lend things to for this reason.

The conflict of government allocation of resources is coming to a head. The financial problems our country faces (On ALL levels of government: Federal; state; city and local) have reached a breaking point. The Democrats and unions do not understand this. They barely understand the most basic financial and economic principals. This is demonstrated time and again when they refuse to accept any retreat in benefits that they have acquired. (This is a natural tendency) An example:

In 1992, the basements of numerous buildings in Chicago were flooded. My company moved us into another building. Once power was restored, we were moved back and water bottles were stationed throughout the building because the water was not known to be safe for drinking. After 6 months, this had been corrected and the bottles removed. A huge uproar was the result and numerous meetings were held. The representative of the building (It was being rented) stated that it cost more than $150,000 a year to maintain the bottles. The company ate the cost for 6 months, but it would have to lay off some people if they were maintained. We voted on it. Out of more than 40 people in my meeting, I was the only person who voted to remove the bottles. I asked several people why they voted the way they did. The answer that I received was "I do not believe them." (Please note: Most of these people were college graduates.) This is what we face when we attempt to remove entitlements and benefits. This is a complete misunderstanding of economics and cost of production. Unions are particularly poor at these subjects.

Once potential bankruptcy is obvious, unions have been known to make exceptions. Many times, not even then. The members just do not believe that the financial situation is as bad as is being presented. Immense damage had already been done before they reach this point, and still many times refuse to believe what they are being told. What is even more troubling is that our country is facing this type of situation and many people just do not recognize how bad it is or how important it is to deal with it. It will take some type of economic shock to potentially wake them up. That will be way too late.

This is why we are seeing so much unrest concerning state governments and the cutbacks. Hell, even the NFL is being impacted and they are supposedly awash in money. What is generally not recognized is that it does not take much of an economic shock to make a company bankrupt. They operate more efficiently than just about any other economic organization and as a result are susceptible to all kinds of disruption. All we need today is some type of major disruption in the economy of the U.S. and we will be in trouble the like which has never been seen by us before. This is why the conflict at the state level is becoming so heated. Some people see this. This makes it worth risking more in fighting. Hence a greater level of pressure is being applied, which adds to the stress in this conflict.

Misunderstanding the fundamentals about warfare

2011-03-26T05:15:00.000-07:00

Thursday, (3/24/11) I was driving to work and listening to Hannity on the radio. An interviewee who was a President Obama supporter was speaking. I did not catch the name, but something he said was very important. The discussion was about our intervention in Libya. He was very respectful overall but he did say that most of the listeners (Conservatives) did not understand how President Obama was preventing World War III. He went on to say that today, we are not seeing the US flag being burned like we were after our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The conversation went on to specifics about Libya.

What I find most interesting about this is how he recognized the overall size of the conflict. We are looking at World War III and at least he understands this. What I don’t get is how we are now avoiding this confrontation. True, we are not seeing the open hostility to the US in the form of flag burning like we were a few years ago. What I don’t agree with this interviewee is how our current President has changed all of these people’s minds.

Do you know of anyone who has changed his or her mind about the Israeli-Palestinian issue? This is like changing your mind about abortion. I made up my mind about abortion in 1972, just like I made up my mind about Israel and Palestine about the same time. When it comes to issues at the heart of violence like the Israeli-Palestinian issue and Islamic terrorism, people just do not switch sides. (Once again, think about the people who supported slavery) What they will do is expose themselves given the right set of circumstances. Like after 9/11. Another situation was after the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have studied warfare for more than 40 years. People do not change their mind about issues of this type just because the other side changes leaders. The south would not give up the slaves no matter who talked to them or what the other side did. One of the biggest problems we face today is identifying who our enemies are. After all, this is the terrorists best ally. The ability to hide. Anything that we can do to make them want to come out into the open is a very good thing. This interviewee seems to think that the issues at the cause of World War III are like some type of election. Given the right people, we can convince them that war is not a good option and that we have another that is better. History has demonstrated that all this does is push the confrontation off to another day. Another thing that this interviewee does not understand is that time is not on our side. It is only a matter of time before nuclear weapons or some other WMD is deployed. As far as I am concerned, that will be the beginning of World War III.

The war can be won today by using conventional weapons. But we must act today. Libya is only a sideshow. It is by no means the epicenter of the conflict. WMD are most likely not going to be deployed because of Libya, one way or another. WMD will more likely be deployed because of Pakistan, Iran or Israel*. This is why Afghanistan and Iraq are so much more important. Once WMD are deployed, conventional weapons can still be effective, although not nearly as much as they are today. The pressure to retaliate with the use of our own WMD will be immense. President Obama is not avoiding all of this. His actions are pressing toward it.
　
* Please note that I say BECAUSE of one of these countries. Israel and/or the US are the most likely targets. Pakistan and Iran are the most likely sources.

The war is growing

2011-03-23T07:11:00.001-07:00

When running for office, President Obama appeared to be the most anti-war of all the candidates. He was not in favor of either war in Afghanistan and Iraq. He only wanted to get out of both. (March 2008 was his initial target for withdrawal from Iraq) We, the United States, had no business being in either country. I am certain that his actions in Libya are against his wishes. He was forced to act because of events. I am certain that because the rebels were about to be wiped out, the military action was given the green light in order to prevent this outcome. The point here is that the war is growing, despite the efforts of a President who is about as anti-war as can be imagined. The entire region is simmering.

The Telegraph: 3/22/11

Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood gains upper hand

"Islamist reformers seemed to be gaining the upper hand over their secular rivals in Egypt on Monday after gaining a boost in a referendum on constitutional change."

This is not a surprise. However, now that our attention is on Libya, many here and elsewhere will not notice this important ‘CHANGE’. We are losing the war. What is probably not understood by many is that these isolated events are actually part of a much bigger conflict. Many see these events as unique situations that are not connected. This is an incorrect view.

Violence is expanding throughout the Middle East and North Africa. This does not tell us that we are winning or losing. What this does do is create new combat veterans. With all of this combat going on, we can expect many new veterans to crop up all over the world. We can expect terrorist activity to rise to a new level as new terrorists are ‘created’. Actually, this is only doing what the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have begun. However, what is different here is that the enemy is choosing where to fight. The strategic initiative has been lost. In addition, the enemy is not taking anywhere near the losses that they were taking in Iraq. This will allow them to deploy these new assets elsewhere in the world, at places of their choice.

The idea that all of these governments, or even a significant portion of them, will now become functional republics is likely to prove to be absurd. You never can really tell, because humans will do the dandiest things. However, human nature does not change. We can expect the populations of these areas to choose that with what they are most familiar and comfortable with. Remember how the south chose to fight for slavery? The Islamic part of the world has an entirely different culture than we do. It is very possible that they will choose Islamic governance, or some hybrid that is based upon Islamic law. This does not bode well for the interests of the United States and the ‘West’. And if any of these governments become more actively supportive of Islamic nationalism, the rest of the world will be in the cross hairs.

Inflation

2011-03-19T04:17:00.000-07:00

After the stimulus bill was passed two years ago, I have been expecting a rapid rise of inflation. Then I found out that much of the money was not to be spent until 2010. This was a smart move politically. In the past, the effects of spending like this would be felt 6 to 9 months later. In other words, the fall of 2010 would see an improvement in economic activity and the inflation would not show up for another 6 months to a year after that. This has not worked out the way it was expected to. The economy has not reacted to the stimulus and inflation is only showing up in the commodities market. (So far)

I still believe that high inflation is coming our way. However, what some experts are saying is that what is holding it back is the high unemployment. After all, if a significant portion of our population is out of work, the amount of money flowing is curtailed. The goods are still available, but the extra supply of money is not reaching the population. Hence only a little inflation.

This concept has some merit, although even if true, this will only postpone the inevitable. Sooner or later, the spending has to catch up with us. What I suspect (And some experts also see) is that when inflation does start up, it will be very rapid. I had expected that it would start slowly with interest rates going up over a period of a year or two, then begin to take big jumps. Interest rates will probably be a lagging indicator. Commodity prices are an early indicator and they are already making upward moves.

If we are going to see a rapid rise in inflation, I would expect that it would begin sometime later this year or early in 2012. A year and a half to two years after the spending began to really kick in. It is difficult to tell if the rise will be so steep as to cause the problems that I wrote about in recent posts, but it should be enough to at least rival what happened in the late 1970’s. As with any prediction, I can be full of it. However, if you are worried about a rapid increase in inflation, it is best to begin to make your preparations today and plan to be ready by the end of this summer. Well, you can’t really be ready, but better off than you would be if you did nothing.

Emergency planning (Part II)

2011-03-16T04:30:00.000-07:00

The second major threat is hyperinflation. This is where the money supply is expanding so rapidly that prices are going up on a daily basis, perhaps hourly. The best thing you can do in this situation is to understand that hard items that are useful tend to hold value.

1) Paper currency goes up so fast that you must spend it immediately. Then you trade for what you need. The barter system becomes the norm.

2) Gold and Silver will be more of a stable currency. Experience has shown that hard commodities like gold can be used to purchase other hard commodities, like weapons. Hard commodities are not as useful when attempting to purchase expendable items like food, water and fuel.

3) A six-month supply of food is recommended. Back up water, fuel and even gas is recommended. For example, I keep the two gas cans in the garage full. I empty them into the cars at the beginning of each month then I re-fill them. I have a spare propane tank for our gas grill. I may purchase a 2nd backup. Dehydrated food can have a shelf life of many years.

4) Begin a vegetable garden if you do not have one. Expand if you don’t have one that provides extra supplies on a yearly basis. Any and all food will be in demand.

5) Gas and fuel of all types will be in demand. Alternative forms of transportation may become necessary. Fuel prices may be so high that people will avoid driving unless absolutely necessary. Bicycles can provide an alternative on a limited basis.

6) If hyperinflation does hit the US Dollar, the barter system will replace money. You will need to become proficient at exchanging items. Everyday items will be extremely expensive. Shoes, clothes, soap and toiletries: Yes, toilet paper.

Many will disagree with this statement, but our President has placed the U.S. on the strategic defensive. This means that anyone living in or near a major city is now in the front line. With all of the financial problems in Europe and the U.S., things can easily spin out of control. People will fight over scarce resources. We are already beginning to see this. (Wisconsin is only a minor example) The question is how far will it go before it settles down?

Hopefully, none of this equipment will be needed. I do attempt to make things as inexpensive as possible, not to mention useful even if things DON’T become extreme. If anything does, at least you may have some equipment that is in demand and is readily tradable for something else. At best, it just may help save your life.

Libya and airpower

2011-03-12T06:53:00.001-08:00

In the desert environment, control of the air is a dominating position. Aircraft and missiles are far more effective here than just about anywhere else. This is also an ideal environment for mechanized units. All the side that has control of the air has to do is basically what we did in Iraq. Supply is heavy. For sustained combat, trucks are needed. They don’t stand a chance in the open desert. So just move and surround the areas of resistance. The battlefield is isolated and all you have to do is move in. Then move on to the next one.
　

Emergency items and planning. Part I

2011-03-09T06:02:00.001-08:00

I saw an ad on TV last week talking about emergency planning in case of a natural disaster. This is a good idea anyway, but I thought with all of the unrest that we are seeing today, it may be a better idea to go into a little more detail.

The biggest advantage anyone can have for the unexpected is to have a plan. The two major threats today are some type of physical disaster (Part I) and hyperinflation. (Part II)
In a physical disaster situation, a major decision that must be made immediately is to ‘hunker down’, or to flee. Do you set up in your home, or do you flee to a destination far enough away to be out of danger?

If you decide to flee, it will help a great deal if you already have a number of potential destinations. Do you have relatives in a nearby state or area away from where you live? Or friends who you can rely upon? You will also require at a minimum a ‘bug out bag’. Search on Google for details. A ‘bug out bag’ is a survival kit to keep you going for 3 days. The seven items listed are:

1) Water: One liter of water per day per person.

2) Food: Energy bars or back pack meals.

3) Clothing: Boots or shoes, long pants (Not blue jeans) 2 pair of socks, 2 shirts (One long sleeve and one short sleeve) A jacket that is warm and protects from rain, Long underwear, a hat, a bandana. (30 uses for bandanas)

4) Shelter: A tent or tarp and a way to set it up. A floor tarp is necessary to stay dry. A bedroll.

5) First Aid kit: Build your own. The prepackaged kits can be OK, but probably don’t have the right mix.

6) Basic gear: 3 ways to make fire (Prefer 5 ways) Small pot/large cup to boil water. Backpacking stove and fuel are better. At least 2 dependable flashlights and a backup set of batteries. A knife is the most used and versatile tool in the bag. Be careful what you select here.

7) Weapons: A firearm is best although your knife can be a backup. A walking stick or club can also be used.

If you decide to ‘hunker down’, you will be advised to have a variety of supplies available.
Here is a condensed list of what we have so far.

1) Flashlights and radio. Battery backups for all. Hand crank so no need for batteries and/or backup power supply. I am looking into a solar power generator that would supply power and recharge any batteries that we would need. This may require an inverter to convert DC to AC power. I have seen articles that say this can be obtained for as little as $300.00. More realistic is $500 to $600.

2) Reserve of fresh water. 1 liter per person per day. Tablets for making unknown water supply safer to drink. A filter to make water safe for drinking is also available. Collapsible water bottles will be useful. You could drain the water heater and tanks that supply water for the toilets.

3) Spare blankets and canned food. We rotate food supply to keep it fresh. Energy bars are easily transportable. The stores have only a 3-day supply of food. It is recommend having a 3 to 6 month supply of food at home. Freeze dried or dehydrated foods have a shelf life of many years.

4) Plan of action: Do you leave the area as soon as possible, or do you ‘hunker down’ and wait a few days for the dust to settle before you move out? Where will you go if you had to leave the general area?

5) Cash on hand. Credit cards, debit cards, cash stations may not work. Cash may be important to have. Even small amounts of Gold and silver can be of great value. (Note* gold and silver may not be good to purchase fuel and food. It should be good for purchase of arms and ammunition)

6) Three ways to make fire. Lighters and matches. Candles may become very important. A flint or magnifying glass may be used.

7) Backup transportation: The EMP from a nuclear explosion may destroy ALL electronic devices. Cars will be disabled and stop immediately. Can you walk or have bicycle backup?

8) Medical supplies. A first aid kit is a good start. Bandages along with tape, crutches and splints may be useful. Build your own kits. The all-in-one packages are likely to have too much of things that you don’t need and not enough of things that you do. They are a beginning only.

9) Weapons for defense: People will probably panic. They just may take violent action. Not that anyone wants this to happen, but it may be very useful to have a night club or some other hand held weapon to defend yourself with. Your knife can be useful here. A pistol is recommended. A shotgun and rifle have more functions. Binoculars may be useful.

Armageddon

2011-03-05T05:30:00.000-08:00

President Obama is not a moderate, despite the appearance that he strives to cultivate. He was supposed to bring us and many other parts of the world together. What he actually does is create enemies. The rancor that I see in political affairs today really bothers me. Representatives are leaving their states to prevent measures that they don’t agree with. This does not seem like what President Obama was elected to provide. He was supposed to unite the United States as well as many of the nations of Earth. Compromise and getting along with everyone was to be the order of the day. I certainly hope that he is not as effective in the Middle East as he has been domestically.

On top of this, the financial problems being faced by ALL levels of government are bound to lead to all kinds of unrest as the various levels attempt to grapple with the problem. We are only seeing the beginning of the confrontations, as the solutions/penalties have not even begun to bite.

I know that President Obama believes that he "saved us from falling off a cliff." If this mess is not corrected properly, the United States just may help push the world off a cliff. After all, other parts of the world are far more vulnerable to economic shocks than we are. We may be setting the world up for another Greece, but on a much larger scale.

I just keep remembering what President Obama said after the stimulus was passed. "People thought that this would cause Armageddon, but I went out this morning and it was a beautiful day." I really don't think he understood what the worry was all about if he really thought that Armageddon would be triggered the next day. It is two years later and some type of economic cliff is much closer now. Either a large dose of inflation or a major downturn in economic activity as draconian cuts becomes the order of the day. Either way, plenty of unrest and conflict over scarce resources can be expected. I doubt that he sees any of this.

Unions protect workers

2011-03-02T05:40:00.000-08:00

This blog concerns conflict. The financial problems that our governments (Federal, state, city and local) are facing will require draconian measures to correct. This will lead to all types of conflict over the scarce resources. And Unions will attempt to prevent scarce resources from being removed from their sphere of control. Even though I am no fan of unions, it is human nature to protect what you already have. I cannot ever blame anyone for that.

While union protection of workers jobs is admirable; it is a distinct handicap for the employer. One of the problems that are overlooked is that within a union, it becomes much more difficult to rid the organization of people who are not working out. This is even more so when connected with ANY government organization. Non-union government employees are already almost impossible to remove. Unionized workers are even more so.

I suppose in some cases, the person really should not be fired, but I find it unlikely to be the majority of the cases, by far. I work in a non-union company and the vast majority of people I have seen fired had to be. In the past, I have worked in union shops and knew a number of people who should have been removed but were not. A good friend is a union steward and has given me plenty of examples of people who should have been fired but he protected that persons job because that is his job as a representative of the union. As a direct result, the ability to improve the quality of any organization is jeopardized, if not impossible.

This is a major issue with teaching in particular. If teachers cannot be fired or removed, the quality of the product, our future, is questionable. This is an issue worth fighting over. (I am speaking metaphorically, not literally although it could come down to physical violence) I suspect that this is a major reason as to why we are seeing such an emphasis upon this issue in Wisconsin and Ohio. And this issue will probably be seen in many other places as well, as our various levels of government attempt to grapple with the financial problems that we face.

Pessimistic

2011-02-26T06:25:00.000-08:00

It appears that a crisis is approaching.

1) Economic problems in the U.S. are on the Federal, state, city and local levels. Bankruptcy is a distinct possibility for the largest economy in the world. If the United States cannot pay the interest on the debt, we will be forced to default. That day is coming, or else a massive change in spending. Unrest like in Europe is very possible, as Wisconsin is already demonstrating. And this problem is not even beginning to be addressed.

2) Unrest all over the Middle East. It is possible that Democracy is popping up all over the place, but so unlikely as to border on madness. More likely that once things settle down, the region will get the types of government the people want. Some type of Islamic based legal system. It is suited to step into vacuums and people have a habit of choosing things that stabilize things. This legal system is coming our way.

3) We have an Imam organizing an Islamic meeting on the White House lawn to impose Islamic law in the U.S. Want to start a war? Lets start having Islamic ideology like stoning become established as law in this country.

It just feels like we are on an edge of some type or another. Just waiting to fall off. Maybe things will settle down. I don’t think so. The reason that I am picking a pessimistic view is because of the financial problems in Europe and the United States. It could go the other way, but I doubt it. Economics can cause wars. When resources are scarce, people will fight over them.

Suicide Weapon

2011-02-22T17:32:00.000-08:00

We are not seeing the high profile suicide attacks recently. The suicide attacks are still occurring. With all of the unrest throughout the Middle East, I have been expecting otherwise. Maybe the needs of the populations are being met. More likely is that the suicide attackers are not needed right now. Suicide attacks have a high attrition rate, so you don’t want to use them unnecessarily. The following post is from 4/25/09 and contains many of the reasons that I believe that what we are seeing is a lull in suicide attacks.

4/25/09

"Today the popular belief is that the Japanese who took part in banzai charges, flew kamikaze missions, piloted kaitens and shinyo ‘bang boats’, or served as human mines, were all fanatics. Because many of the banzai charges were ordered on the spur-of-the-moment no doubt there was an element of fanatism in the army’s operations. But the kamikazes, kaiten and kairyu men were dedicated individuals whose calm acceptance of death illustrates the impact of ideological persuasion." (A.J. Barker, Suicide Weapon, C1971, Page 157)

For the past 25 years or so, we have been seeing only the 2nd occurrence of the use of suicide as a weapon of war. The point here is that many of us believe that our enemies are only a very small minority of ‘fanatics’. Just the idea of a small number of ‘fanatics’ is incorrect. ‘Ideological persuasion’ is required to overcome the most basic instinct of all living things, survival. The suicide attacks we are seeing today are spread all over the Islamic world. They tend to be concentrated within areas of open warfare, but suicide attacks are occurring in many other parts of the Muslim world as well. Just the very size of the geographical area indicates that this ‘ideological persuasion’ is much more pervasive than a very small minority of ‘fanatics’.

Of large concern is that the suicide attackers are coming from such a large population. This population can be expected to produce far more suicide attackers if the need became obvious. It is also very unlikely that this ‘ideological persuasion’ can be altered in any significant way without some very large, traumatic event.

The first occurrence of the use of suicide as a weapon took nuclear weapons to put an end to it. (Many argue that Japan was on the verge of surrendering anyway, but no doubt the nuclear attacks sped up the Emperor’s decision to intervene and end the war.) The educational system of the culture that produced this first wave of suicide attackers was altered severely and thoroughly.

I expect that WMD will be used long before this current war of ‘ideological persuasion’ is over.

End Post of 4/25/09

It does not seem possible to me that the issues at the core of suicide attacks have been resolved. Islam is a major part of the ideology of the suicide attackers and is showing little to no reversal of the basic teachings that inspire the attacks. Maybe I am wrong, but I just do not see democracy (As repulsive as it is to Muslims) taking root all over the Middle East. After all, much of the reason that Israel is so despised is because it IS a democracy.

Hope and change

2011-02-19T06:15:00.000-08:00

President Obama was elected with a promise of ‘Hope and change’. I must admit, I never thought that the hope and change that he would deliver would be as effective as it has been proven to be.

Hope is with us always. I don’t really need my leadership to express this concept very much. My oldest son has autism. I hope that he will become independent some day. I am working very hard to help him. The reality is that it is a very good possibility that he will NOT EVER be independent. Hope only goes so far.

President Obama has promised change. He is delivering. Our economic system is changing, drastically. Our financial problems were already present on the local, city, state and federal levels. Now our financial problems are going to be the cause of civil unrest within our own country. It is only beginning. And this ‘change’ is occurring in other parts of the world as well.

Just look at the Middle East. ‘Change’ is all over the place. A major problem is that ‘Change’ is not necessarily for the better. Islamic culture and democracy are not compatible. One major aspect of Islamic culture is a sense of superiority and privilege. A major symptom of superiority and privilege is a sensitivity to insult. And we all know how the Islamic world is sensitive to insult. I suspect that most of the ‘changes’ that we ultimately get ‘over there’ are going to be more hostility toward the U.S. than ever before. And what is starting this process of ‘change’ over there? One major reason is the rapid rise in the price of food. This is at a time when the U.S. government is encouraging third world countries to convert food into fuel. Good idea, turn a product that people can eat into something that they cannot. And burn lots of energy in the process.

It looks as if we are going to NEED hope more than ever. President Obama sees himself as having ‘saved us’ from the brink of economic collapse. By spending resources so far beyond our means that we have a distinct possibility of not ever being able to pay the interest on the debt, let alone the principal. This is bankruptcy. This is on the national level and we are supposed to be the economic engine of the world? I believe that this will result in a major regional, if not a world war. Change indeed. And we will need all kinds of hope because that will be all we will have left.

Republicans are warmongers?

2011-02-16T06:01:00.000-08:00

One of my brothers-in-law sent this to me back in 2008.
Whatever your politics, however you lean, and however you feel about thecurrent administration, this report helps dispute a common perception.
As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider thefollowing statistics:

The annual fatalities of military members whileactively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 - by any cause.
1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 ........... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 ........... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 ........... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 ........... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
1994 ......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)
1997 ........... 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 ......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
1999 ........... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 ...........1,983 ( Clinton Year)
2001 ............. 890 (George W Year)
2002 ........... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007............. 899 (George W Year)
Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,107 deaths
George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths

(Please note some missing years.)

While I do not know what the breakdown on what cause of death was, I find it very interesting that President George W. Bush has close to one half the loss of life as President Clinton. This is even more pronounced because we have been engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for most of President Bush’s 2 terms. And we were supposedly losing the war in Iraq, a war that was a disaster!

The clincher for me is the fact that all 5 major wars since the U.S. Civil War have been with liberal Presidents.

The Spanish-American war was the only Republican president, but in 1898 Republicans were liberal and Democrats were conservative. (By today’s standards) No matter how you slice it, this was a war of aggression.

World War I and II can’t be blamed upon the Democrat president, but we can hold them responsible for our direct involvement. (We needed to be in both)

Korea was a BIG mistake by Truman. He withdrew all U.S. troops in September 1949. The war began with an invasion of the South on June 20, 1950. He badly underestimated his (Our) enemy.

Vietnam was a screw-up by Kennedy and Johnston. Want to know how? Please let me know.

I can go into considerable detail on how U.S. involvement in all of these wars evolved. Please feel free to ask for more details.

I am guessing that Republicans have the label ‘warmongers’ because they want a strong military so that we are better equipped when we do have to fight. Also, Republicans see strength as a deterrent. Republicans also believe than many wars can be kept much smaller if dealt with sooner rather than later. In other words, dealing with aggression is a lot like dealing with bullies. Better to face them right away. The longer you wait, the worse the fight will be. Stand up today so that you don’t have to fight tomorrow. Well, we all know that does not always work, but it is generally worth the attempt. After all, saving lives is VERY important. You also know the old saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.