Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Bringing It All Home Part I

So here you have it.. the dupe package I told you about is well on its way. The same pundits on TV and in Congress that were eager to vote and get it going without thought, now are wondering where all that money went, asking why there wasn't any accountability attached to all the loans.

Exactly how much is $780 billion dollars? Can you understand that figure? If you want some perspective as to how much money is being bandied about, take a look at this comparative chart:

Expense, Cost, = Cost Today Adjusted to Inflation

Louisiana Purchase $15 million = $217 billion

Race to the Moon $36.4 billion = $237 billion

S&L Crisis $153 billion = $256 billion

Korean War $54 billion = $454 billion

The New Deal $32 billion (est) = $500 billion (est)

War in Iraq $551 billion = $597 billion

Vietnam War $111 billion = $698 billion

NASA (Cumulative) $416.7 billion = $851.2 billion

WORLD WAR II $288 billion = $3.6 trillion

The very agencies that collect and spend our money, namely the government, don't feel that they have to account for it themselves while they demand that everyone else account for their earnings via the income tax. Amazing isn't it? Well, where did the current $780 billion go? Can you name what it was spent on? Where will it take us?

Congress, in their rush to spend the money we don't have to fix the economy only created a bigger chaos and a deeper problem; but don't take my word for it, wait for the layoffs, because the only accounting that is for certain is that your government invested in bad debt and they don't have a clue if and when it will be paid back. Yet, nevertheless, you are stuck with the bill.

Congratulations Americans, you've been duped.

Thanks for reading.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Total Disconnect

Local evening news shows a story about how cold it is and how few shoppers are out and how hard the economy is hitting businesses while some are worried about losing jobs therefore networking for new employment possibilities. The story is followed by this one: SF Mayor Gavin Newsom's wife is wearing the largest chocolate diamond ever mined with cut 3800 facets and the spokeswomen asking if her husband, Gavin will open his wallet for the gem.

Mayor Newsom is the one that totally ignored law and his pledge to uphold it, by allowing gay marriages in the city without voter approval, saying we're doing it "like it or not", is currently running for Governor.

Arnold Schwartzenegger declaring California to become the first and largest electric vehicle supporter effectively forcing Californians toward that goal (like it or not to borrow a phrase from Gavin Newsom). Electric grids in the state can't keep up with current electric usage requiring rolling blackouts during the warmest days of the year; and we're not even considering the cost of "plugging in" a vehicle with currently rising electric prices, another 20% increase hitting us as we speak.

Ditto governor, declaring that California will abide by the Kyoto protocol (like it or not) indebting an already indebted state and then asking the feds to help it with loans.

Local news media and the ruling Democratic Party is blaming the Republicans in the California legislature for being late with a budget plan. The Democrats have had a majority stronghold on the Californian legislature for the past 30 years succeeding in getting us further into debt in the last 3 years despite of record tax revenues collected during the same time. Somehow I wonder how a 2/3 majority can be held at bay by a 1/3 minority.

The Democrats in the California legislature ignoring constitution and trying to pass tax increases, calling them "fees" without the required 2/3 vote.

Lest we forget, Pelosi and company accepting the usual yearly Congressional pay increase while expecting to increase taxes on the rest of us. I guess there's no financial crisis in Congress.

When will we wake up?

I'm sure you can think of more, so add it in comments.. thanks

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Fair Warning

Socialism is a formal economic system where society forces considerable control over the nation's wealth and prosperty in the pursuit of social justice. Regardless of whose idea or who worked for it.

Relativism or more accurately Moral Relativism holds that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. In moral relativism there are no absolute rights and wrongs.

Classical pluralism is the belief that politics and decision making is located mostly in the governmental framework, but many non-governmental groups are using their resources to exert influence. This is why we have lobby groups but the new President wishes to do away with them and replace it with online group lobbying addressed directly toward him on his site. So, could it be funneled through a single stream of communication censored at the whim of a single power? I doubt that many in Congress would go along with that single stream idea. I'm sure they would also wish for one for themselves and perhaps be able to hide the funneling of funds even more easily.

Ahh the Internet: equalizer and demoralizer and socializer and most of all homogenizer of us all but worst of all, the easiest way to spy on us all. I keep remembering the movie THX 1138 by George Lucas, when I think what the Internet can and will do especially when in agreement with philosophies for the many. Of course, when it becomes "free" to all in public places it will become: the better to watch and spy on you, my dear.

Currently we have embraced all of the above and are headed for regulations yet to be unveiled. When considering the great set up of tools left behind by the current administration it's dangerous. Even good tools in the wrong hands can do harm, like the EPA, but some of these are bad tools already: Ability of Government to intervene and regulate monetary policy for the USA is one thing but to intervene and regulate companies money profits and governing abilities is another. Ability of government to spy on suspected terrorism activities via the Patriot Act is OK when used by honest law abiding people, but what happens when socialists that only wish to "equalize" things get a hold of it's permissions. Governments lending a helping hand when disasters strike and when people need temporary assistance is one thing when those funds given are constant without limits and results demanded, it becomes a constant stream of dependence that keeps government powerful and the downtrodden down. One can't justify itself without the other so the dependence has to be kept streaming.

Give me some happy pills to swallow with this hope and change to come.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Is McCain's Loss Conservative's Gain?

I said from the get go that McCain was not electable as a Republican and I actually have doubts if he was even electable as a Democrat. I do not know why people thought he was. Ever since he's been around as a political candidate for the job, he has been the same in his expressionless expressions and his non-convincing stands which proved to be the most obvious problem during his current run. The question as to who or where he was on the political map constantly remained. In many ways he is a Socialist yet he also fits the definition of a Pluralist as well as a Moral Relativist but a Conservative he is not and he's too wishy-washy for Liberals' to like.

That he was not a Republican or a Conservative came out loud and clear when he broke his own claim to be a entitlement watchdog as he assisted the Liberals and Democrats in endorsing and voting for the biggest entitlement program via the bailout package in history. I was actually surprised that the media did not clobber him with that one. The only reason why I think he was spared is because he was also the past darling of the media and his action on the bailout was very much in line with the Democrat wishes in Congress. Also perhaps because the media knew that given enough leeway, McCain would sabotage himself; and sabotage he did.

When many of the electorate does and did not know which party was in charge of Congress the last two years, whose fault is that? Who is not speaking up? Who is not educating? One can blame the media for a lot but not for everything. It is precisely because the harder battle is for the ones less publicized that Republicans need to start speaking up with more energy and they need to learn how to focus their communication to the future of the country, not rely solely on their past glories. It's bad enough that history is being rewritten to favor the liberals alarmingly fast, and that education in our schools have been suppressed, but that is exactly why education has to be taken up by the party and calling out the opposition should not be held at bay.

Every chance the Democrats had to debunk the Republicans they've used; McCain did not. The next candidates better learn fast if they are to have any leadership hopes. They need to be more energized and more communicative and more outspoken. They need to learn and be comfortable with the new media because they cannot and have not been able to rely on the old one. TV is almost pointless to rely on for them; the newspapers and magazines are almost dead, except for photographs. It's the radio and computer communications that are the most widely heard. Pod casting especially will be more popular.

So the question remains about whether Conservatives gain. What current politicians lack and lacked the past 6 years is the fact that they cannot bring into the foreground any youthful energy perhaps because they're afraid to let go. The instant energy that was created when McCain introduced Gov. Palin was an unmistakable signal that this is what the party needs and wants yet the message seems to be lost on the leadership. I can't believe that there isn't anyone in the House or the Senate with a younger and different voice that can and is willing to take the reigns but I seem to be wrong because they both re-elected the same leaders that have basically led them to losses in both houses. Not a great start for the future I'm afraid and it's too bad because this time in the next two years is when the greatest opportunity happens; when you have nothing to loose because you have lost it all. Will the Conservatives be able to recognize the opportunity?

Thanks for Reading

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Change, I Dare You!

"As above, so below" works the other way especially in the USA; so ponder: "As below, So above" because that's where the answer may be. Examine the lies you tell yourself as well as your lies to others, are there any you can correct? Change yourself, Change Society. Greater change comes from within than from idolizing some "Great Guru". Perhaps if we realized it years ago, we may not be facing what we are faced with today; waiting breathlessly for politicians to decide our future in: finance, health, education, security, and even our love of life today.

That what we are doing is for the "global good" is and has been obvious of America. Yet, you've been told that we should be punished for numerous affronts to this world and the injustice we have supposedly done to the many who have fought for your freedom. It is scary that you feel guilty for what we haven't done, yet scarier still is that you are made to feel undeserving because of what we have built, shared and consumed. It perpetuates even further our lack of confidence allowing even more lies to be excused.

Obama was elected on such thoughts and I feel sorry for all those who bought into it because if ever there was a cause to be proud of, it's this one: We helped the Iraqi people into freedom, out of and from under a dictatorship that killed in the hundreds of thousands, in less than 1 year and helped them rebuild since then. That was under the leadership of Bush and that's faster and with far less casualties and costs endured than we have helped Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, England, Japan, Phillipines, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria, and the rest of the satellites of the Soviet Union.. Georgia and Ukraine, Latvia being amongst them; the countries of Yugoslavia, South Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Somalia individually!!! There are so many more, but I think you get the point. Yes, I've included those we have yet to succeed with and yes, the ones also we were indirectly involved with because they are all deserving of our help. Because you, wonderful people you, who so willingly wish for the best, and follow hope and change, should not deny those that are also wishing for the same under terrible dictatorships. So it makes no sense to me that you think we should be out of Iraq until they are ready for us to leave.

Now, for most of you, I imagine that is not easily identified with and for you I'm glad. I'm glad because you have not suffered the horrors of a dictatorship.. yet. For those that have fought over there, however, I feel sad and glad. Sad because you can't relay to us the horrors that you've seen and glad because you have been assured under the current administration that you and your children are safe at home and don't have to witness such as you've seen. Yes, you have taken the horrors onto yourselves so we don't have to suffer such. Sound familiar? It should, because the veterans of WWII also did the same and because of them, you exist in a free society.

This society that so many of you are ready to forgo, to give up and of which you are ashamed only because you are ignorant of its history and of what people can do to and with each other, has done wonderous things for many. You believe the stories that the USA is horrible and does atrocious acts from the likes of Ayers and your late night entertainers yet you have been starved of the stories of such heroes as these because of a media with a negative USA agenda: http://www.onceamarine.com/

So I say unto you: You don't know half the truth and are ready to condemn us all. It's sad for the USA and it's sad for the World that from such ignorance so many will suffer.

Thank You Veterans and Thanks for Reading

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Is Conservatism Dead?

I can't help this creepy feeling that these G20 meetings will come out to be nothing but Global Socialism agreements. As the heads of the world continue to meet, argue and theorize, what strikes me as unusual is that there are no real conservatives among them. The real conservatives of the world, that forged the greatest economies are out of power or dead. Reagan, on whose coattails and wise tax cuts, Clinton became a success leading to a 1 year government tax surplus with a Republican Congress, Bush who led us out of a recession, not of his own making and with further tax cuts, is too late with free market speeches and not long from being totally out of power with thoughts of good riddance from many. Thatcher and Blair whose platforms unraveled fast under Brown. Australia's John Howard whose wise leadership and conservative know how, led them into a surplus out of a deficit helped along with a tax cuts and now is helping Australia weather this storm but for how long? Spain too turned to a socialist leader a few years back and now facing harder times along with many European Nations.

Where to from here, when most of the G20 nations are Socialist or Communist? Regulations upon regulations which will lead to more because once started, we can never regulate enough to encompass all? We all need a good lesson in free markets again because it works beautifully when left alone. Governments need to learn to keep hands off private business and financial institutions because when in a crisis it is revealed that they know nothing of how to run one, especially profitably. I hear some analysis that we are well on our way to owing 70% our GDP that means trillions that we'll pass onto the future and many criticized the cost in $$ of the Iraq war yet are well on board to all bailouts. It's insanity.

Governments should not regulate welfare via businesses and businesses should not lobby governments for favored status and regulation to save themselves the extra trouble of sticking with good business practices. Yes many corporations and banks will fail and for good reason: they did not keep to the fundamentals of good business. It's also true that many were too far interfered with by government wanting to administer welfare via the businesses. A trap that all businesses should remember when lobbying governments: somewhere both sides have to pay back. Debts have to be paid and unfortunately this time it was the entire world economy that is going to be left with the debt; yet no one is talking about less spending and less government.

Businesses that do not run themselves well should and will fail that is built into life; governments should be the same way as many are, via elections when and where elections are free. Try and mix it together and you have bureaucracies upon regulations upon more of the same forevermore, creating a convoluted, confused and miserable system which is certainly not fair to anyone except onto themselves.

Conservatism lets natural evolution weed out the bad from the good via attrition, whereas Socialism lets it all stew and mix allowing for more concealment and corruption.

Thanks for Reading

Thursday, November 6, 2008

What's In A Speech?

Watching President-elect Obama's acceptance speech I wanted to find something I am wrong about to hang my hope on, but alas, I could not. Instead I found further signs to justify my trepidation when he said that "we are not a nation of individuals" and that "we will come together as one", as well as when he said "we need to sacrifice" and that the job may not be done in four years. All subtle they are the kind of messages that I will be shrugged off as a fool for hearing and argued with that I read too much into such things. I hope so, I hope so.

I have not heard a President before ask for the people to sacrifice themselves to a cause vaguely named; but I heard dictators do it. What I saw on the various faces in the audience was elated worship, and yes elated hope too and it was clear to me that these people would probably sacrifice themselves for him and that scared me rather than give me hope.

What has driven this nation to greatness and to great achievements was individual thinking, individual innovation and individual sacrifice and not a melding of people into one. Melding brings out the average, the mediocrity and a susceptibility to be controlled.

I have not heard a President speak before, about expanding his term so soon, nor have I heard one say that this Nation needed to meld into one mind before it can be "OK" again; a one people before we can present ourselves to the world again. What does that mean? Why does he say we're not "OK" the way we are? What does he want to "fix" in us and why do we think we need "fixing" I keep having more questions then answers whenever he speaks.

Obama is an excellent speaker and his delivery is well timed, soothing and engrossing almost to the point of hypnotism. But over many of his speeches I have been wondering what is his really talking about, what is he not saying, where is the specifics and substance? Is he talking: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Moral Relativism, Pluralism or is it Humanism? All need sacrifice from yourself or of yourself but not all lets you keep your: self.

One thing is for certain, there will be change because there always is change; so with that word he's saying the obvious and the inevitable and he always has. Question is will President Obama lead us to the kind of change we'll all embrace or we'll all regret, or both?

As I said, only more questions and no real direction yet; just hope and change and on that, he has so far, delivered.

Thanks for Reading.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Congratulations Americans: a Message and Observation

I wish to congratulate President-elect Obama and I congratulate all African-Americans for this historic election and long sought victory. I rejoice with you and for you because now you have come into your own and now you'll be able to present yourselves to the world as you wish to be viewed. Gone are the barriers of media, of disinterest and suppression; gone is discrimination. You now bear the sole responsibility of how you project yourselves into the world and how you wish to be perceived by the world. It is a challenge which needs pondering because your presentation will reflect on President Obama.

President Obama will also have an extra burden not experienced by other Presidents; besides representing the nation and its people, he will be also looked upon to represent black people to the world.

His attempts and successes will be largely dependent on a supporting or suppressing media. A couple of other African-Americans learned that the media does not necessarily favor on skin color. Both Gen. Colin Powell and Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice, by all definitions should have been given the same accolades that Barack Obama received for being first, yet they were ignored not only by the media but also by their own kind; the very same brother and sisterhood that Barack Obama brought together with pride.

As to our Nation, this too is about you. I'm glad that this Nation let go of its inhibitions to vote for a black American but I will let you all judge yourselves and your choices as time unfolds whether you chose the right man to lead this land,because he's first, a man; and voting for him because he's black does not encourage confidence in me.

I, for myself have hope, a hope that I am wrong about what is to unfold in the USA the next few years because I cannot rejoice about an election where the vision of "hope and change" pushed for a future of Socialist utopia. I will face it openly and with commentary as usual. I am forever an optimist so I doubt if my attitude will change about the good in us all. There are things that, when all is said and done, we have to leave up to the Universe to handle because the Universe, by its own nature and beyond our view, balances it all.

Thanks for reading.

Monday, November 3, 2008

It Was Ours To Lose

Discussing with a friend the two Presidential campaigns, he noted that the Obama campaign was masterfully planned and executed while the McCain campaign was disheveled and found wanting planned direction. I noted that although it's true, I don't see how the Republicans will ever have a masterfully planned and executed campaign. I think that because the members of the Republican Party are more private, whilst the Democratic Party members are more social and by that premise, we have to consider that it's easier to change the thinking of one individual in a group as opposed to changing many individual ideals into thinking like a group, so I'm not sure that the comparison of campaigns is what we need to do.

Democrats seem to discuss things in groups because they are more the social thinkers and they come more easily to a group agreement; the Republicans are more private individuals who tend to come to their own conclusions before engaging in discussion. Therefore, I believe it's easier to convince Democrats to follow; in other words, both parties each given a talented, charismatic, strong leader to follow, it would take longer for the Republicans to champion theirs.

By it's very definition of Democracy or Democratic means majority rule, thereby given the whim of the majority of the people, so shall laws be enacted. This also means social justice, social agreement, social good. and that the one man one vote given above 50% should rule the land. The trouble is that this does not take into account that many can be influenced on the whim, or on the long run with repeated information (true or not) and therefore many can be made to drink the "cool aid" quite easily.

In contrast I believe there are many Libertarian thinkers in the Republican Party that believe that government should stay out of private business and should be minimized. Coupled with the Republicans who believe in representative government which means a governing body that represents the way it's voters think thereby giving the governing body several ways to ponder an issue before it comes to writing law. This is a more diverse group therefore less easily corralled into thinking alike.

One can see by these definitions why the anarchists, fascists, communists, prefer a group of social thinkers to infiltrate with their ideas. Hence the Socialists infiltrated the Democrats and used them to weaken the USA to the point where the real Democrats themselves felt lost and unwelcome within their own party and were soon pushed out. It didn't happen overnight it happened slowly, methodically, through education and propaganda. Like a disease that does it's worst underneath the skin for a long time before it's detected and by that time it's diagnosed, it has done it's worst and to most it feels so natural that they do not realise the danger of it's mutation.

It's such mutations that allow neighbor to turn in neighbor, colleague tell on colleague, friend distrust friend and society to fragment. Normalization comes with syrupy promises and favouritism doled out to those that do fascism's bidding; not realizing that we are all losers in this game and the winners are yet to show their true identities.

Our forefathers knew that balance was needed and therefore could not support a one party system. It is a fine balance and one that needs to be preserved yet we are faced with the possibility of a one party rule; and it will rule in all situations for this next presidential term. Something that our forefathers feared and, those of us who know from experience what it can mean, dread. But don't believe just me, believe those that have lived it then ask yourself, who do you wish this upon?

Your children??? Naivete is funny in the movies but not in real life. Please pass this on.

Thanks for Reading!

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Mirror to the Future

Many have compared President George W. Bush the past 8 years to Hitler, attributed to what facts I still cannot find. Yet the more likely comparison, it seems to me, can be made with this November 2008 Presidential election to September 1930 elections in Germany, which can be based on facts.

The following passage was written in The Rise of Adolph Hitler : Great Depression Begins and can be found in "The History Place" (tm) and online presentation of history founded, owned and published by Philip Gavin since July 4th, 1996. I find it the best and most comprehensive writing of facts without embellishment or favoritism.

He writes:

  • "When the stock market collapsed on Wall Street on Tuesday, October 29, 1929, it sent financial markets worldwide into a tailspin with disastrous effects."

    "The German economy was especially vulnerable since it was built out of foreign capital, mostly loans from America and was very dependent on foreign trade. When those loans suddenly came due and when the world market for German exports dried up, the well oiled German industrial machine quickly ground to a halt. "

    "As production levels fell, German workers were laid off. Along with this, banks failed throughout Germany. Savings accounts, the result of years of hard work, were instantly wiped out. Inflation soon followed making it hard for families to purchase expensive necessities with devalued money. "

    "Overnight, the middle class standard of living so many German families enjoyed was ruined by events outside of Germany, beyond their control. The Great Depression began and they were cast into poverty and deep misery and began looking for a solution, any solution. "

    Adolf Hitler knew his opportunity had arrived."

As you may have noted, the above passage is very relevant to our current political and economic situation; as is the fact that we are in an election cycle.

Continued, in the second passage titled : Germans Elect Nazis
  • "Adolf Hitler and the Nazis waged a modern whirlwind campaign in 1930 unlike anything ever seen in Germany."

Obama's campaign has been nothing but extra ordinary with the record amount of funds spent and collected.

  • "Joseph Goebbels brilliantly organized thousands of meetings, torchlight parades, plastered posters everywhere and printed millions of copies of special editions of Nazi newspapers."

Who can forget the Greek columns, the record attendees at speeches, and the use of the Internet as well as the media in Obama's pocket?

  • "For Hitler, the master speech maker, the long awaited opportunity to let loose his talents on the German people had arrived. He would find in this downtrodden people, an audience very willing to listen. In his speeches, Hitler offered the Germans what they needed most, encouragement. He gave them heaps of vague promises while avoiding the details. He used simple catchphrases, repeated over and over. "

Master speeches, honeyed words making vague promises of change and hope, refunds and reparations, "something for everyone" has been the only message from the Obama campaign.

  • His campaign appearances were carefully staged events. Audiences were always kept waiting, deliberately letting the tension increase ... theatrical style lighting and decorations of swastikas was overwhelming and very catching.

Obama has his own logo and today, Obama will have an unprecedented 30minute television speech paid for by his campaign TODAY, Oct 29, 2008..... can you hear the chants yet?

  • "All of the Nazis, from Hitler, down to the leader of the smallest city block, worked tirelessly, relentlessly, to pound their message into the minds of the Germans."

  • "On election day September 14, 1930, the Nazis received 6,371,000 votes, over eighteen percent of the total, and were thus entitled to 107 seats in the German Reichstag. It was a stunning victory for Hitler. Overnight, the Nazi party went from the smallest to the second largest party in Germany"

  • On October 13, 1930, dressed in their brown shirts, the elected Nazi deputies marched in unison into the Reichstag and took their seats. When the roll call was taken, each one shouted, "Present! Heil Hitler!"

Obama voted "Present" many times. (I know, cheap comparison, but true nonetheless)

  • "They had no intention of cooperating with the democratic government, knowing it was to their advantage to let things get worse in Germany, thus increasing the appeal of Hitler to an ever more miserable people. Now, for the floundering German democracy, the clock was ticking and time was on Hitler's side.

Well I wish to go no further. Yet I have to also bring into your consideration Obama's friends or (non-friends) that he has over the past 20 or so years been associating with; specifically Ayers. Although a Marxist/Communist it makes no real difference when it's totalitarianism that we are faced with because they all fit the definition.

In a recent radio interview on KSFO with Barbara Simpson, I heard the former undercover FBI agent, Larry Grathwohl, from the Weather Underground, recount and play a taped discussion among the members and with Ayers. The discussion was about the agenda that they would have to enact once they have taken over the control of our government. Included in the agenda, aside from the usual communist tactics of education, indoctrination was the discussion that the people who are highly educated and those who are die hard capitalists will be the most difficult and most likely give resistance therefore, they'd have to be eliminated. They expected that about 28 million Americans would have to be killed in order for the total capitulation to be a success.

So let's see: Nazis, 30 mil, Soviet Union only estimates available (they kept lousy records) but upwards to 200 million, Red China unknown but most likely 200 million, and counting, Cuba numbers unknown; is it our turn? Now do you see the similarity to the Nazi's, Soviets, and Red Chinese, Castro's Cuba, Chavez Venezuela? Totalitarianism is their motive and you must consider the fact that Obama has yet to denounce them or his associating with them, during his campaign which should shed a lot suspicion about his motives and question his true agenda for America.

Thanks for Reading


Thursday, October 23, 2008

Choices Memorandum: 1956 Okt. 23

I am starting this news and events blog commentary on a very important anniversary of my life and world history. It strikes me as odd that after so many years, we are faced with an election choice that could lead our lives down a very dark passage. A passage that many have lived before me and many although muted by anarchism are living today. It's a type of hell that I cannot wish on anyone and it's the type of suppression that is hard to imagine by those who have not yet lived it. I am viewing it as the coming dark ages of the USA.

The population of this great nation, for whatever the reason, seems to have turned away from those that have lived through dark ages before; ignoring warnings from our forefathers that if we don't preserve what they have given and fought for, what we will get, will be deserved. Why so many wish to choose tyranny now is beyond my comprehension; why so many wish not to learn from those who lived it is only foolishness of non-experience that will have long term consequences for our children.

If evidence is needed that the current path of choice is not wise, we only need to count the number of people who have successfully escaped from those tyrannies and count those that are so very grateful to have had the opportunity to live on this soil in North America. We don't even need to go back to the beginnings of this nation, but you should, in order to be reeling from the enormity of their suffering from which they escaped. This nation was formed by escapees of one tyranny or another and those that successfully arrived here felt blessed and were thankful and knew that they were the lucky ones; countless more died in the fight to leave tyrannies and countless died rather than continue their lives under those regimes.

In contrast I do not know a single person who can say that about the USA; even those that wish for and believe in anarchism, fascism, socialism, communism or the like. Yet they want for the rest of us to believe like they do, instead of believing in the right of self-rule that our forefathers gave us. I'll never understand why they don't emigrate to one of those nations they espouse and wish for us to become. Wouldn't it be simpler? After all, my family escaped from there and emigrated here. So why not vice-versa?

In my opinion , if you are one that thinks this nation to be faulty and needs "change" and "hope" you are on the side of tyranny. I also think the people of this nation need waking up and until they do please do not change a single thing, because the change and hope you wish for happened 232 years ago and no more needs to be done to it except the guarding and preservation of its beacon of freedom.

It is my belief that without this nation of ours, breaking away from tyrannies will become much harder for people like my family. The people of this nation who have known its beautiful history sacrificed and gave to those that did not have the same opportunities. Many are doing it today in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as long forgotten Bosnia, Albania, South Korea. Many are voluntarly teaching, working, helping in the most impoverished nations around the world. Many have given their lives for others in Europe and Asia and would do it still despite the criticisms, because many of us still remember and know how fortunate we are.

I thank our forefathers of my adopted Country, I thank those hundreds that have directly aided me, I thank those thousands of Americans that spoke up against tyrannies in the world and I thank those that fought for my freedom against Soviet tyranny starting this day in Hungary 52 years ago.

Please let's not have a need to repeat it.


PS. A friend sent this link with an eloquent message

. Thanks for reading and listening

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Debate: HR Bill 6251

I love the debate and abhor the shortsightedness and I no longer trust in the "intelligence" of Congress for it is sorely lacking.
To believe that drilling will not get us out of this mess therefore we should not do it shows that they are still in the 1970s mentality and have not learned an iota about planning for future events. It's an all or nothing idiocy that proves they have no capability of logical thinking, nor ability to do simple math. In my equation, some dependence is better than total dependence. Even if drilling does not give total independence in the next 30 years, not drilling will definitely continue our total dependence, as the last 30 years have shown us. It is mistaken to think that we are the sole dependents on oil and that the rest of the world will care an iota about our woes for not going after self - reliance. Wasn't it the USA that strived to teach 3rd world nations to become self-reliant? Why is it selfish for us to practice it then? We have the means and we have the resource and we waste valuable time leaving our future generations to become more vulnerable to foreign manipulation which, to what I see, is much more dangerous than any real or imagined oil company manipulation here at home. Drive the oil companies further overseas and they will have to dance more and more to their tune and not ours. China, Russia, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, India, Norway could care less about our inner struggles, they're drilling everywhere they can, including our front, back and side yards, and India and Dubai are busy building the largest refining facilities in the world, whilst we argue. Will we, too, have to import gasoline as well as oil only because we refuse to build new refineries? As with cars, you can only repair refineries you will never make them more efficient or less polluting; for that, you need to build new refineries.

Further, is it really wise to think that public transportation will solve this problem? Witness the dismal results of the last 30 years again. There have been more public transits built around California and I'm sure around the nation. Did it reduce driving? No. Is public transit used by more people than 30 years ago? Yes. Yet our highways are glutted in traffic. In addition you cannot compare the USA with Europe for public transit as this country is far larger and distances are greater so to think that we will build a transit infrastructure as they have is downright foolish. Just overlay Europe on the USA map and you'll see the foolishness of that idea. They are far more populated per sq meter. Also do you propose we do what San Jose, CA did with their new shiny fuel cell buses? It cost to the tune of 6 million each and it costs $52 / hour to maintain. Compare that with diesel of $1.20/hour. Be realistic, it is not affordable...yet; but to think also that the only way we are going develop alternative energy is by rewarding it ala John McCain is also unintelligent and an obvious disrespect to the many companies that have been hard at work for giving us alternative sources. Never mind that more funds have been given by the government under Bush than any other president before, for the the development of such, it is in the nature of American ingenuity and capitalistic mindset to pursue to offer to the world what is needed and wanted even without need of government incentive. That's what drives our great nation forward and to think that it would not be on the market if it was possible is just downright stupid; even if you believe as some do, that oil companies suppress such new developments, with today's information superhighway, it would be impossible to keep such new successful developments a secret for long.

But let's take it a step further, for those who side with the EPA and fret over environmental damage that none of us really want, yet some of us actually think that it also takes intelligence and not just gung ho activism. To begin with, as I mentioned above, old refineries are more polluting than new ones would be, so drop that argument already. Second, as to the incentive proposal of John McCain, who has really thought through the environmental damage that would be caused by millions of batteries produced out there. Yep, they will reduce our dependence on oil, and will be less polluting, perhaps, while in use, but then what? What happens when their usefulness dies. What do we do with those batteries? Are or will they be recyclable? Also consider the electricity needed to recharge the batteries; you know that our electric grids are already overused, it is why here in California we have to be on rolling blackouts, so think what would happen when we plug our cars in nightly. Just to name a couple of reasons as to why we are not ready for that "solution"... yet. Congress along with the EPA tend to jump on the "bandwagon" without much "thinkthrough". Consider the MTBE fiasco that polluted our table waters, now costing us millions in clean up. That was Congress, not the oil companies, who mandated it who shoved it down our throats. (In fact I remember the oil companies telling us it would cost more to produce the MTBE additive and will drive our gas prices up, as it did. Of course so did the removal of it.) Consider the current drive of our new energy saving light bulbs being mandated into use by the California Legislature and our esteemed Gov. Schwarzenegger. Maybe too much brawn not enough brain? Who will pay for the mercury poisoning in our environment and the deaths that it may cause? So don't be so sure that Congress knows what they are doing nor that it's those "big-bad" oil companies that cause all your woes. Also consider that coal is the #1 energy source for producing electricity (52%), so where are the black puffs of smoke and sooted environment? We learned to reduce the pollutants of burning coal tremendously so we don't even realize that it's being is used in such large quantities. Think of what could happen if we allowed the oil companies to keep working on reducing the pollutants in their product. As to the finite or infinite source of oil.. well... new evidence points toward the infinite availability of that commodity and maybe not the most of it in the Middle East.

So we need oil, like it or not, and we also need it for a myriad of other products which will not diminish in time either. Read the last paragraph of the following link especially: http://www.quoteoil.com/oil-barrel.html?gclid=CJesyZr30IYCFTBBGAodB1q88A We will have other alternative sources of energy available as solar is getting better yet for now we need oil even if only because we know what to expect with oil and we also know how to make it cleaner and more efficient.

And finally, to think that we have to stop using oil in order to force our reliance on alternative sources, is like saying that all the horses should have been shot so the automobile could become more usable. Transition always takes time if not only because of development but also availability and affordability. Who do you think really pays for all that which Congress mandates and passes regularly; in case this is news to you, all companies, regardless of income or profit, collect it from you the purchasers of their product. Congress cannot make everything affordable to everybody. We simply cannot pay that much tax, period.


Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 6:24:06 PM
Subject: Oil leases and profits Re: HR bill 6251 !

Exploration takes time. We should concentrate on most promising sites initially. If speculation is a factor in price rises, additional leases will diminish that. Why are Dems and libs against additional leases. Are they in the pocket of the environmental lobby? Are they afraid someone [evil capitalists] would earn a profit. Do their pension plans have oil company stock; if so Tut, Tut! Do they understand that the hope of profit encourages investment in the risky business of exploration and development. Or are they just plain ignorant?

About oil companies profits, see http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html which says"

"over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy"

The federal gasoline excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon while the average state and local tax is 27.5 cents. I think oil companies operating profit is less than 8 cents per gallon. When they distribute this profit to shareholders they pay corporate income tax. And then the shareholders pay personal income tax on the distributed earnings.
If we had made more leases available 10 years ago, more wells would be operating today. Google has plenty info, such as:
Federal News Radio - WFED: Bush urges Congress to lift offshore ...
Jun 21, 2008 ... (This version CORRECTS that oil companies have 68 million acres of undeveloped leases on federal lands and waters.)) ...
www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=78&sid=1423781 - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

Original message

Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:43 PM

Subject: HR bill 6251 !

Read this and please explain how one can defend the big oil companies & the repub. congress.

H.R. 6251 would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases or relinquish such leases.


DeFazio Helps Americans Suffering From Record Fuel Prices |

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Springfield) took steps today to reign in oil and gas prices and provide relief to American consumers. Oil currently costs over $130 a barrel and a gallon of gas costs, on average over $4 a gallon. To combat the impact this is having on Americans, DeFazio cosponsored two pieces of legislation: H.R. 6251, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act and H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act. He also voted in favor of H.R. 6377, the Energy Markets Emergency Act. Two bills, H.R. 6052 and H.R. 6377, passed the house by 322 to 98 and 402 to 19 respectively.

"Today, as the price of oil reached a record high of $140 a barrel, I was proud to take action to help Americans," DeFazio said. "The legislation passed today will set America on the path toward energy independence."

DeFazio is an original cosponsor of H.R. 6251 which compels the oil industry to start drilling or lose permits on the 68 million acres of undeveloped federal oil reserves which they are currently warehousing. The lack of development is keeping domestic supply lower and prices high. There are 68 million acres of leased but inactive federal land that have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. This legislation would nearly double total U.S. oil production, increase natural gas production by 75 percent, and put an end to oil companies artificially driving up prices by hoarding leases. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than one-third, reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil. This legislation was blocked today by Republicans, who sided with big oil instead of hard working Americans, but it is expected that the House will consider it again soon.

H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, gives grants to mass transit authorities to lower fares for commuters pinched at the pump and expand transit services. Transit use is up 32 percent since 1995 and in the first quarter of 2008 Americans took 2.6 billion trips on public transportation, 3.3% more than the first quarter of 2007. It is clear that ridership is up due to fuel prices and this legislation aims to aid people taking public transit.

Finally, H.R. 6377, the Energy Markets Emergency Act takes steps to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures markets, which experts have noted is driving up the price of a barrel of oil. If the commodities markets, particularly the oil market, were subject to appropriate regulation, credible industry experts say that American consumers would see oil prices cut up to 50% in 30 days.

"The U.S. needs to move quickly to a sustainable energy future, but until we get there we need to tap the resources we have and we need to block price manipulation. Its about time the federal government took actions to defend the American consumer, rather than subsidize big oil," DeFazio said. "The legislation considered today was a giant step in the right direction."