Since the war began in Iraq in 2004 that still continues today. The Iraq war has mounted too many battles that began to rage in Fallujah, Bagdad and pockets of resistance. As a result from these battles there has been an onslaught among the US Troops which many of them fought with dignity, honor and courage. Yet as our servicemen had fallen or have been wounded in action many of its citizens in the US had seen the broadcasts and images that have been implanted and branded within their minds forever. Such images among the many had started to wonder and doubt like the many who thought the war was lost and there was no end to the war. Especially among the Liberals who automatically claimed that the war was lost and we were defeated on the battle field. Yet they had no faith in the ideas and cause for such actions which they themselves had no ideas or plans of action because of their own political ideology which does not fit the norm.
Unlike conservatives Liberals seem to view national security as the means for social work which they place their political ideology in the hands of the United Nations as to intervening and intervention for peace, determining our National Security and International Law. As for the United Nations I do not know one successful peace keeping mission that the United Nations has provide for the world? Was it at Panama, Central America, Berruit, Granada, Bosnia, or was it Somalia? Last time history have been checked it was the United States that got involved with those military operations while the UN Diplomats continued to say they disagree with genocide and military aggression. Where was United Nations to implement the International Criminal Court proceedings to indite Communist leaders who slaughtered a million and half Asian peasants or Saddam Heusan had ordered over 300,000 of his own people to be killed. It can only be in conclusion that the UN Diplomats and its country leaders are only after their self interest. If the UN was serious about peace, peace would have been achieved through this diplomatic tool. Yet when looking at the factors for National Security within our own boarders and the security of our National Interests it is only thought through the combined strength of the United States agencies and Military can successfully achieve and to accomplish true goals. Numerous factors as to taking chances to assert or to dispose of something for example when Saddam Huesien was n the process of building his atomic reactor it was not UN Resolutions and International Law that forced him to dismantle the reactor. It was Ronald Reagan who ordered it to be a target to be destroyed. It was not International Law that brought Kaddafi the known terrorist to mend his ways it took a bomb that destroyed his house, yet Kaddafi handed over and disposed of the many biological weapons that he had disposed in Libya. As a nation if we were to allow such ideas of "International Laws" to exist with United States National Security the world would be waiting a long time for peace which allows as a safe haven for dictators even terrorists to take advantage of political situations that would achieve their own self interest. It is a policy of weakness in thought, being taking advantage of because of gullibility, ineptitude contempt of our national defense and enacting laws that abide terrorists and gang activity. Such Law was enacted, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978 which was sponsored by Ted Kennedy and other Liberal Democrats. FISA prevents the executive branch from monorting foreign enemies and which the executive office must convince a special court that there are sufficient specific and articuale facts to indicate that the individual’s activities are in preparation for sabotage or international terrorism. In other words there is a veritable wall that prevents the security of our Nation. Such acts from Liberals who “we the people” elect to the congress, you put your trust in them to make moral and intelligent decisions yet they are jeopardizing the National Security of this nation and National interests.
As Iraq’s security becomes a metamorphosis that is taking shape where there was once a chaotic ethno sectarian violence, AQI’s errors, the surge in U.S. troop levels and the capacity of the ISF. With these numerous combinations that took place since 2006 the over all violence has declined by 80% since the surge in U.S. troop levels was strategically implemented. The Acts of the ethno sectarian civil war which actually did occur declined 90% because of AQI’s errors and the shifting of becoming aware of their own self awareness in political freedoms. There is an Invisible Hand at hand that guided Sunnis and Shiites to becoming in part of the Iraqi government. Through strategies and plans and with out International Laws or UN resolutions we can clearly see that political freedom guides their own initiative and drive towards their own peace and peace to its country. This can be justifiable in an example that disrupting and boycotting elections which the Sunnis did in the 2005 elections. The boycott and disrupting the elections caused the Shiite militia to take control over various governments of various provinces. Since then there is an anormance support and the majority of the Iraqi people who reject the militia which is also in decline are now viewing that socially and cultural differences within the both parties were in the wrong and how the parties hindered the political process.
As the presence of U.S. and the coalition stayed persevering on a route towards a stable and political government. I agree that the Iraq is long is hard but the hard work that was put in to it seems to have created a new Iraq that the Iraqi people can be proud of and with out the fear of living in fear. If the attitudes were to preserver by Senator Harry Reid (D, AZ) who had said in 2007 that the war was lost yet Senator Harry Reid (D, AZ) was not up to par with Foreign Affairs and the current events occurring in Iraq. As of today, September 1, 2008 Al Anbar one of the largest province in Iraq has been handed over to the Iraqi people which Al Qaida thought it was safe haven for them to terrorize and control the province. In addition to the political changes The Iraqi military has grown significantly and as of 2008 it is estimated that has grown to 559,000. It is estimated that new solders and police will increase to 100,000 per year. As of 2008 in to 2009 the readiness of solders and police is estimated at 55% meaning that as new solders and policemen are recruited and trained there can be a large rotation military and police to be taken out off the battle field and to meet the new demands and training that is needed to sustain Iraq’s national security, security of the state and it’s citizens. As these security forces are in full swing it is likely that who ever is president or in congress it is possible for the military to be withdrawn but only as a percentage based upon the percentages of combat ready of the Iraqi solders and police.
As the country is still fragile it is essential that the U.S. and coalition forces are a necessity in the presence of Iraq. Why? There are numerous reasons to why because there are still influential minds within politicians who are still loyalists to religion and can be easily persuaded by other typical Arab States. Thus fall to prey from other Arab nations who are not concerned about establishing elections and the freedom of individuals. As a result there could be coup attempts that can emerge and if a coup attempts fail, there can be an out break of a war between the sectarian’s and its rivals. If we were to withdraw our troops now as of today, foreign policy experts and the CFR claim a military coup can occur. Also another danger would be organized crime and the political leaders of Iraq, the stronger ISF would lead to many misfortunes. Between the two combinations including the wealth of Iraq Oil, there are numerous scenarios that it could lead to a most hostile and dangerous situation, not only to the Iraq people but to other nations.
As of today there is a true chance that a withdraw can be possible according to security of Iraq and that
Monday, November 17, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Fabian Game
As modern as of today, there are many among the internet who believe that the elite are diabolically moving towards global domination. That the citizens of the world, who are just plebs are being manipulated in to an ideology that their own convictions and thoughts are their own. Many of you are thinking how can that be? as you give a quick smirk to the idea. Many philosophers and psychologist determine that our own thoughts are not your own thoughts at all. Those thoughts are just brief bits and parts of other people thoughts. Lets look quickly how this can be. At birth the mind is a blank slate where the mind which is a biological super computer that can input and output information in billionths of seconds. As the information is taken in by our 5 senses the brain processes those thought based upon the knowledge we have stored in long term memory. When thoughts or other stimuli are inputted from the external environment, the long term memory then connects those ideas that the individual believes to be true or he/she or he/she can dismiss it as false. Yet as the individual becomes older, the individual’s cognitive thought process becomes much broader and complex. The individual is able to connect and tie his/her own cognitive dissonance or cognitive consonance which is derived from previous knowledge to what she/he has learned from other individuals, society and from other institutions which they affiliate themselves with. Derived from these thought processes the individual is able to identify themselves as something they can connect to such as political, social or economical identities. Engaging in these cliques the reinforcement becomes stronger and powerful where at some point the individuals thoughts become rooted within the individual. This is why in my own thoughts that if individuals were to separate from these cliques of society you would see a complex system that is interwoven within society. Through reasoning, as these higher levels of cliques which is part of society, each and every part is continuously in conflict with each other which cause confrontations. Just look at the political, religious and economical cliques, Autonomy vs. Tyranny, Liberals vs. Conservatives, Atheists vs. God, Anti Capitalists Vs Capitalists, and Supply Side Economics vs. Progressives. Each and every group arises to the occasion of revolution in some form or another which these ideas and thoughts breeds its own revolution within. If these confrontations were to be taken to the extremes, if one side was to become to powerful, armed conflict would result yet how would one side defeat the other side to gain power with out cognitive dissonance from society and to accept the change that is imposed upon society? As to reference to H.G. Wells book, “The New World Order” Published in 1939. H.G. Wells wrote that sovereign nations would end thus resulting, that free individuals will hate the new world order and will die protesting against it.
As far back as it was documented, moles within their own political affiliation of government were in training to be in particular roles for other foreign governments. Their roll was to obtain and achieve high level secretive levels within government to obtain classify information to benefit other political powers within the world. Yet what if the opposite was true? Those who are affiliated not with any political or other institutions but individuals who exist in a well-contrived system whose position is within the realms of despotic power where they use despotic ideology to tumble many institutions to create what is called, Problem – Reaction – Solution. Thus misplaces government to create other institutions and departments beyond the sovereignty of Congress and beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts.
What is Marriage?
There are many who say that this nation was founded upon Christian values. Yet if an individual were to take a closer look at the interwoven principles within the constitution I would mostly agree to say yes there are Judeo/Christian concepts and there are many parts of the constitution I would clarify to say no. Yet the interpretation U.S. Constitution can be applied to what are the rights and privileges that are granted to the individual to peruse life, liberty and happiness. As society gradually advances in the future years which many can identify to what their own existence is defined to be. They themselves whom are part of society become more complex. Yet in the mixture of society which the individual lives in live in the realms of the norm which majority takes part of and defines what is to be. That is to live in the micro world of the institutions that many people live in and expected to live in according the norm of the majority. In the micro world within in these complex systems become more defined and the autonomy of an individual takes over their own existence. We can say the rebellious side emerges which the individual that is restricted from the majority of the norm. At some points within many individuals, the individual would want to break away from the tyranny which only set of rules only applies to the majority of the norm. One such application to the majority norm is the issue of marriage which many concerned citizens try to justify that there is only one definition to the true meaning of marriage rather then to think what is marriage?
If one were to look within the document, one would notice that the U.S. Constitution does not state nor does it define what marriage is because marriage is a religious institution where by the US Constitution does not neither grant states nor the Federal government to create laws that favor religion. As it is does not interfere, make inferences or abridge with the freedom of religion. Clearly at this point that marriage is the concept of a religious virtue that is held in the most of respects. Yet what is the concept of As part of a religious institution they stand behind their dogma that has transition into modern days which religious dogma which is not a political entity but a body of doctrine concerning faith or morals formally which was stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church for over 10,000 years. The question is what is a church? Many conceieve it as a physical stone/wooden structure but not so, the church are many who are the physical body.
If we
As to Marriage, marriage was and still well known that marriage union agreement of property. Property in the sense of a fathers daughter which is considered to be his property in exchange for which was
People are not bounded by religious institutions where as many are bounded by religoeus institutions yet there is a division among the two who disagree.
If one were to look within the document, one would notice that the U.S. Constitution does not state nor does it define what marriage is because marriage is a religious institution where by the US Constitution does not neither grant states nor the Federal government to create laws that favor religion. As it is does not interfere, make inferences or abridge with the freedom of religion. Clearly at this point that marriage is the concept of a religious virtue that is held in the most of respects. Yet what is the concept of As part of a religious institution they stand behind their dogma that has transition into modern days which religious dogma which is not a political entity but a body of doctrine concerning faith or morals formally which was stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church for over 10,000 years. The question is what is a church? Many conceieve it as a physical stone/wooden structure but not so, the church are many who are the physical body.
If we
As to Marriage, marriage was and still well known that marriage union agreement of property. Property in the sense of a fathers daughter which is considered to be his property in exchange for which was
People are not bounded by religious institutions where as many are bounded by religoeus institutions yet there is a division among the two who disagree.
Monday, October 20, 2008
A letter from Senator Charles E. Schumer: Issue BioFuels
Last September I wrote a letter to Senator Charles E. Schumer about research projects based on the production of corn ethanol which is actually more of a pollutant then "Environmentally Friendly" when manufactured in to a bio fuel. Another part of my letter explained that there would a limited amount of production yield to manufacturing of corn ethanol and thus it will endanger American farmers and the economy as a whole in future prices and limited amount of corn nation wide and internationaly. This was the response I received that was sent to me which I agree with.
Dear Mr. Guerra:
Thank you for your letter regarding corn ethanol production. I share your concerns about the potential negative effects of this technology, and I am working to protect our environment and economy from any potential damage that it might cause.
Ethanol made from corn has been sold to the public as a panacea – as a “green” source of energy, and one that will secure America’s future by finally making us “energy independent.” Unfortunately, the rosy picture painted of corn ethanol by Midwestern corn conglomerates is not accurate. Rather than being environmentally friendly, the production of corn ethanol releases as much carbon into the atmosphere as traditional petroleum fuels. Furthermore, corn production introduces pesticides and fertilizers into the environment. And far from promoting energy independence, the shipping and manufacturing of corn ethanol requires as much petroleum as it takes to make the ethanol itself. Finally, our rush to produce ethanol has diverted corn away from other important uses. Short supplies of corn have put a huge strain on farmers, who are watching the cost of animal feed skyrocket. America’s demand for corn is raising the specter of food shortages throughout the poorer regions of Mexico and Central and South America. The unfortunate truth is that corn ethanol provides no environmental, economic, or security benefit over petroleum, and it raises serious ethical concerns about our obligations towards our neighbors.
But while corn ethanol is not the miracle fuel that we were promised, other plant-based “biofuels” do have the potential to protect the environment and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, without putting strains on American agriculture or other countries’ food supplies. Technology to produce ethanol from cellulosic plant fibers in non-food plants, such as switch grass or trees, is being developed. I am proud that New York is home to several of the most advanced cellulosic-ethanol companies, and I am working to bring federal research grants to these companies and the New York universities with which they work to increase the pace at which they develop the technology that all America needs. I voted for H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. This bill establishes a grant program within the Department of Energy to research cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels.
I am excited at the possibility of fuel made from plants, and I look forward to a day when biofuels make up a significant part of America’s energy stock. The faster that we are able to develop cellulosic ethanol and other truly “green” fuels, the sooner we can abandon corn ethanol and return corn production to its best use: food.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this important issue. I hope that you will contact me again if there is ever anything that I can do for you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
Please do not respond to this email. To send another message please visit my website at http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm . Thank you.
Dear Mr. Guerra:
Thank you for your letter regarding corn ethanol production. I share your concerns about the potential negative effects of this technology, and I am working to protect our environment and economy from any potential damage that it might cause.
Ethanol made from corn has been sold to the public as a panacea – as a “green” source of energy, and one that will secure America’s future by finally making us “energy independent.” Unfortunately, the rosy picture painted of corn ethanol by Midwestern corn conglomerates is not accurate. Rather than being environmentally friendly, the production of corn ethanol releases as much carbon into the atmosphere as traditional petroleum fuels. Furthermore, corn production introduces pesticides and fertilizers into the environment. And far from promoting energy independence, the shipping and manufacturing of corn ethanol requires as much petroleum as it takes to make the ethanol itself. Finally, our rush to produce ethanol has diverted corn away from other important uses. Short supplies of corn have put a huge strain on farmers, who are watching the cost of animal feed skyrocket. America’s demand for corn is raising the specter of food shortages throughout the poorer regions of Mexico and Central and South America. The unfortunate truth is that corn ethanol provides no environmental, economic, or security benefit over petroleum, and it raises serious ethical concerns about our obligations towards our neighbors.
But while corn ethanol is not the miracle fuel that we were promised, other plant-based “biofuels” do have the potential to protect the environment and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, without putting strains on American agriculture or other countries’ food supplies. Technology to produce ethanol from cellulosic plant fibers in non-food plants, such as switch grass or trees, is being developed. I am proud that New York is home to several of the most advanced cellulosic-ethanol companies, and I am working to bring federal research grants to these companies and the New York universities with which they work to increase the pace at which they develop the technology that all America needs. I voted for H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. This bill establishes a grant program within the Department of Energy to research cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels.
I am excited at the possibility of fuel made from plants, and I look forward to a day when biofuels make up a significant part of America’s energy stock. The faster that we are able to develop cellulosic ethanol and other truly “green” fuels, the sooner we can abandon corn ethanol and return corn production to its best use: food.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this important issue. I hope that you will contact me again if there is ever anything that I can do for you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
Please do not respond to this email. To send another message please visit my website at http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm . Thank you.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Destinctsion Between Life and Alive
People often think and write that life begins at the moment of conception which is the case but it is the beginning to begin life which the cells begin to form in proper sequence. Starting from a zygote which then transforms in to a 2 cell stage, then a 4 cell stage which then developes to a cell mass call the morula. Once in this developmental stage a cavity is then formed which the cell is a now a circumfrance called the blastula. After this stage is complete the next stage is the gastrula which is form is in a shape of a horse shoe. As the cells developes more of a complex infrastructure (nerves, lungs, hear, brain, ect.) is formed to sustain life after birth. This is the most important and essential developmental stage for every organism to continue to exist in its external environnment. Yet there is a distinctive definition between what life is and what is alive.
We know by definition that life is the creation of existance. Enable to exist our complex system must sustain our living body to continue to live. In other words to be alive all organs within the organism must sustain your own existance. To sustain your existance to be alive all organs must be healthy to survive inside the womb. Enable for healthy organs to flourish, a supply of nutriants are needed to be to be digested and distributed among the many individual cells of the body. Once the nutrients are utilized by the cells, the cells ejects the excess waste and disposes of it eaither by urination or by the fecese. If both are not disposed of by the body, the organism dies.
Within the womb, the mother is the life support for the fetus that supplies the nutrients and ejects the the wastes. Enable for the fetus to survive during the 9months of pregancy. This supply line the umbilacle cord must supply the nutrients towards the fetus and ejects the waste away from the fetus. Therefore if this was not so the fetus will not have an independent existance if sperated from the mother and therefore ceases to live. Yet the fetus continues an independent existance in many respects to it's own functioning organs.
Within its own environment, internaly. Biofactors are needed to form a relationship between mother and her fetus for its own suvival. These biofactors hold true and cannot be denyed to the truth that all living things must coexist with the natrual environment, permantly or temporarly to survive. Where as the case for the natrual environment for the fetus that a coexitance does exist within the temporary environment which is it's own biome. A biome of abiotic conditions that would incluse the emmion sac fluid. Emnionitic fluid to provide cusion and moisture for the fetus. The bio factors are just as important to the effects towards the devlopment of a homosapian. Yet bio factors are nothig more then the relationship between two organiims which biotic and abiotic exist together to develope and to deliver a homosapian to it's external world which it will live in. This relationship represents a symbiosis, a symbolic relationship that is natrrually positive between the mohter and the fetus. This relationship can be reasoned through to two basic prinicples. Since biofactors are conditions that follow naatrual biological laws, these basic laws follows and confirms to the term that there is a symbiosis relationship. According to the first principle notes that all living things depend on their ability to carry out basic life functions. As mentioned before tgar the life process are carried out theough the complex systems enable to keep the organism alive. The second priniple notes that since there is a direct symbiotic relationship , there existance must be mutual in repespect to tcreate and to sustain life for the organim. Yey enable to be mutually positive for the mother, mutualism can be focused on the various psych of mind regarding to the spiritual, political and religous aspect of thought.
We know by definition that life is the creation of existance. Enable to exist our complex system must sustain our living body to continue to live. In other words to be alive all organs within the organism must sustain your own existance. To sustain your existance to be alive all organs must be healthy to survive inside the womb. Enable for healthy organs to flourish, a supply of nutriants are needed to be to be digested and distributed among the many individual cells of the body. Once the nutrients are utilized by the cells, the cells ejects the excess waste and disposes of it eaither by urination or by the fecese. If both are not disposed of by the body, the organism dies.
Within the womb, the mother is the life support for the fetus that supplies the nutrients and ejects the the wastes. Enable for the fetus to survive during the 9months of pregancy. This supply line the umbilacle cord must supply the nutrients towards the fetus and ejects the waste away from the fetus. Therefore if this was not so the fetus will not have an independent existance if sperated from the mother and therefore ceases to live. Yet the fetus continues an independent existance in many respects to it's own functioning organs.
Within its own environment, internaly. Biofactors are needed to form a relationship between mother and her fetus for its own suvival. These biofactors hold true and cannot be denyed to the truth that all living things must coexist with the natrual environment, permantly or temporarly to survive. Where as the case for the natrual environment for the fetus that a coexitance does exist within the temporary environment which is it's own biome. A biome of abiotic conditions that would incluse the emmion sac fluid. Emnionitic fluid to provide cusion and moisture for the fetus. The bio factors are just as important to the effects towards the devlopment of a homosapian. Yet bio factors are nothig more then the relationship between two organiims which biotic and abiotic exist together to develope and to deliver a homosapian to it's external world which it will live in. This relationship represents a symbiosis, a symbolic relationship that is natrrually positive between the mohter and the fetus. This relationship can be reasoned through to two basic prinicples. Since biofactors are conditions that follow naatrual biological laws, these basic laws follows and confirms to the term that there is a symbiosis relationship. According to the first principle notes that all living things depend on their ability to carry out basic life functions. As mentioned before tgar the life process are carried out theough the complex systems enable to keep the organism alive. The second priniple notes that since there is a direct symbiotic relationship , there existance must be mutual in repespect to tcreate and to sustain life for the organim. Yey enable to be mutually positive for the mother, mutualism can be focused on the various psych of mind regarding to the spiritual, political and religous aspect of thought.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Social Security is not property: Time to dismantle SS Serivices.
Over the past few decades the Social Security debate continues to be endless and that our social security system is considered to be in a nation crises. Yet why was such a system created and implemented in this nation even though it is not considered to be freedom from the external control meaning that payroll tax dollars earned by the worker is entrusted to the Federal government.
The origin of Social Security was first proposed by Dr. Francis Everett Townsend an American physician who was best known for his revolving old-age pension proposal during the Great Depression. The Townsend Plan hypothesis was to implement a monthly pension of $200.00 a month to every retired citizen age 60 or older. According to the standard of living, in 1930, receiving monetary pensions of $200.00 a month was considered to be large sum of money which was equivalent to the income of the middle class of the 1930's. Yet enable to achieve that level of income, Dr. Townsend proposed that a national sales tax of 2% on all business transaction. Once the tax is collected the pension fund is distributed to each pensioner and thus it would have been manditory and required that each and every pensioner to spend his/her $200.00 within 30 days. This entire concept was just an idea to end the great depression though consumer spending. The end results would have ended the poverty among the elderly. This concept is no different then the idea of tax rebates which is to initiate consumer spending and spur the economy a bit. Like all analogies, both Social Security and Tax Rebates are nothing more then a band aid that have a few flaws in the purpose that it was designed to do. Typical flaws towards the Thompson Plan would be that pensioners spending would be beneftial at first yet the elasticity of sustaining continous spending would decline at some point and to be a at minimum which the pensioners would have no desire to spend their monetary funds on goods or services. When monetary funds are not spent within the economy it's the consumers choice and decide where and when to save those monetary dollars. Therefore the pensioners monetary dollars are not in circulation to be profited by businesses nor to be collected as sales tax. Another problem is the anticipation that there would be a flow and increase of workers. In all world economies there are always a risk of recessions, inflation and unemployment. If any of these 3 factors or one of them interjects within the system, the collection of payroll taxes would diminish quickly which would result in a spiral decline of insufficient funds to the payroll tax for the high pensions. As a consequence the Social Security fund would be in a deficit. This is the same argument and debate that was presented in 1934. If we were to advance to 1980, during the Reagan and Carter debates, then Governor Reagan was asked the question, “How much longer can the young wage - earner expect to bear the ever increasing burden of the Social Security system?”[1]. As to Governor Reagan's response to the question that was asked of him. Governor Ronald Reagan’s rebuttal, Governor Ronald Reagan implied that the “Great Society” is the cause of the many problems that we face with the Social Security System of then and now. At that time in 1980, the nation faced the worst economic crises which the nation was plagued with double digit inflation, high gas and energy prices, rationed gasoline, high taxes and a high unemployment rate of 8.5%. Yet the Interpretations, the War on Poverty remains controversial which still does not address the social issues that plagues our country of today. The only solution at that time in 1980 was to increase the largest payroll tax for Social Security to postpone the entire collapse of the system to the forward years. In 1982, with bipartisan agreements, President Ronald Reagan did sign into law the largest payroll tax for Social Security. Yet the response from President Carter, his administration did not want to see the Social Security System to collapse either and have it to remain stable but did not offer a response to an idea. Considering both parties it is obvious that both the Republicans and Democrats are committed on a bipartisan to protect Social Security. When you put political ideology in to it, both parties disagree on the issue how to protect Social Security. As of today as it was in 1980, there are still open debates and rhetoric from both parties on this issue.
Still there is an on going of taxes that are still collected in many ways based upon income and sales percentages that correlates to labor, goods and services. Once all of the taxes are collected there is a separation between the federal government and the citizens. There is a separation between liberty and giving up liberty which the citizen does not have control over his/her tax that was collected. Once the tax dollars are collected, the tax dollars are appropriated though the control of the congress which is the federal government which Congress over sees how the money is spent or saved. Therefore the citizens are nothing more spectators and not participants in the appropriation decisions. As spectators you as a citizen are giving up your liberties through the use of taxes which taxes can divide a nation in to class income and class structures. The giving up liberty or to limit government in a sense that congress has the authority to raise taxes to any percentage to create tyranny and thus you as a citizen and worker become a slave to the federal government. Congress has the moral authority to reduce taxes to limit government thus keeping more of your money that you earn so that you have more freedom to save and spend at your own discretion. This is your freedom from the external control which is the federal government. Yet even though it is not the autonomy as thought of by idealists who founded this country on such principles. The Social Security system does not grant us the right of self-government to make a moral and responsible decision. It’s the moral obligation of self governing people who elect our public servants that “We the People” entrust our payroll tax dollars to the public servants that we elect to make the moral and responsible decision. This line of thought is in the same relationship to the fact that the Social Security payroll taxes and retirement benefits are not fundamentally associated with the idea that both are legally binded. According to the Supreme Court case of 1960 Flemming v. Nestor, the decision was based upon that retirees do not have a contractual right to a particular level of Social Security benefits[2]. In other words the Social Security System is a “pay as you go” system on automatic pilot where Social Security consists of a tax that is put in to the system and the functional out put of government transfers therefore there is no legally binding connection between the two. As established by the Supreme Court Decision that payroll tax creates a “no claim” to benefits. As a notation as mentioned before It’s the moral obligation of self governing people who elect our public servants that “We the People” entrust our payroll tax dollars to the public servants that we elect to make the moral and responsible decision. Why? Since there is no connection between the right of claim to benefits and the redistribution of monetary funds Congress have the fundamental powers to reduce or to increase benefits or to redesign the program all together with out trespassing on any legally recognized right. As noted by the Cato Institute “Since legislatures cannot legally bind future legislatures, the existence and level of payroll taxes and Social Security transfers are a matter of popular will and legislative discretion.”[3]
As to the Social Security System and the “Great Society” it is Obvious that the “New Liberals” perhaps best, ‘social justice’, liberalism challenges this intimate connection between personal liberty and private properties. Since the implementation of the Social Security System and the “Great Society” that was created by the older generation from 1935 to 1970. New Liberalism, a new design of social justice was just loosing faith in the free market and society. Their political ideology and agendas was now placed and rooted in to their faith in government as a means of supervising economic life. The New Liberalism (welfare state) is ever increasing at the expense of the tax payers and thus that no social group advances at the cost of another which is nothing more then redistribution of wealth, the intereference and control of your life.
[1] New York Times, Saturday, October 24, 1980. Carter and Reagan presidential debates.
[2] 1960 Flemming v. Nestor, the decision was based upon that retirees do not have a contractual right to a particular level of Social Security benefits.
[3] June 28, 2005 SSP No. 34 Noble Lies, Liberal Purposes, and Personal Retirement Accounts by Will Wilkinson. Cato Institute
The origin of Social Security was first proposed by Dr. Francis Everett Townsend an American physician who was best known for his revolving old-age pension proposal during the Great Depression. The Townsend Plan hypothesis was to implement a monthly pension of $200.00 a month to every retired citizen age 60 or older. According to the standard of living, in 1930, receiving monetary pensions of $200.00 a month was considered to be large sum of money which was equivalent to the income of the middle class of the 1930's. Yet enable to achieve that level of income, Dr. Townsend proposed that a national sales tax of 2% on all business transaction. Once the tax is collected the pension fund is distributed to each pensioner and thus it would have been manditory and required that each and every pensioner to spend his/her $200.00 within 30 days. This entire concept was just an idea to end the great depression though consumer spending. The end results would have ended the poverty among the elderly. This concept is no different then the idea of tax rebates which is to initiate consumer spending and spur the economy a bit. Like all analogies, both Social Security and Tax Rebates are nothing more then a band aid that have a few flaws in the purpose that it was designed to do. Typical flaws towards the Thompson Plan would be that pensioners spending would be beneftial at first yet the elasticity of sustaining continous spending would decline at some point and to be a at minimum which the pensioners would have no desire to spend their monetary funds on goods or services. When monetary funds are not spent within the economy it's the consumers choice and decide where and when to save those monetary dollars. Therefore the pensioners monetary dollars are not in circulation to be profited by businesses nor to be collected as sales tax. Another problem is the anticipation that there would be a flow and increase of workers. In all world economies there are always a risk of recessions, inflation and unemployment. If any of these 3 factors or one of them interjects within the system, the collection of payroll taxes would diminish quickly which would result in a spiral decline of insufficient funds to the payroll tax for the high pensions. As a consequence the Social Security fund would be in a deficit. This is the same argument and debate that was presented in 1934. If we were to advance to 1980, during the Reagan and Carter debates, then Governor Reagan was asked the question, “How much longer can the young wage - earner expect to bear the ever increasing burden of the Social Security system?”[1]. As to Governor Reagan's response to the question that was asked of him. Governor Ronald Reagan’s rebuttal, Governor Ronald Reagan implied that the “Great Society” is the cause of the many problems that we face with the Social Security System of then and now. At that time in 1980, the nation faced the worst economic crises which the nation was plagued with double digit inflation, high gas and energy prices, rationed gasoline, high taxes and a high unemployment rate of 8.5%. Yet the Interpretations, the War on Poverty remains controversial which still does not address the social issues that plagues our country of today. The only solution at that time in 1980 was to increase the largest payroll tax for Social Security to postpone the entire collapse of the system to the forward years. In 1982, with bipartisan agreements, President Ronald Reagan did sign into law the largest payroll tax for Social Security. Yet the response from President Carter, his administration did not want to see the Social Security System to collapse either and have it to remain stable but did not offer a response to an idea. Considering both parties it is obvious that both the Republicans and Democrats are committed on a bipartisan to protect Social Security. When you put political ideology in to it, both parties disagree on the issue how to protect Social Security. As of today as it was in 1980, there are still open debates and rhetoric from both parties on this issue.
Still there is an on going of taxes that are still collected in many ways based upon income and sales percentages that correlates to labor, goods and services. Once all of the taxes are collected there is a separation between the federal government and the citizens. There is a separation between liberty and giving up liberty which the citizen does not have control over his/her tax that was collected. Once the tax dollars are collected, the tax dollars are appropriated though the control of the congress which is the federal government which Congress over sees how the money is spent or saved. Therefore the citizens are nothing more spectators and not participants in the appropriation decisions. As spectators you as a citizen are giving up your liberties through the use of taxes which taxes can divide a nation in to class income and class structures. The giving up liberty or to limit government in a sense that congress has the authority to raise taxes to any percentage to create tyranny and thus you as a citizen and worker become a slave to the federal government. Congress has the moral authority to reduce taxes to limit government thus keeping more of your money that you earn so that you have more freedom to save and spend at your own discretion. This is your freedom from the external control which is the federal government. Yet even though it is not the autonomy as thought of by idealists who founded this country on such principles. The Social Security system does not grant us the right of self-government to make a moral and responsible decision. It’s the moral obligation of self governing people who elect our public servants that “We the People” entrust our payroll tax dollars to the public servants that we elect to make the moral and responsible decision. This line of thought is in the same relationship to the fact that the Social Security payroll taxes and retirement benefits are not fundamentally associated with the idea that both are legally binded. According to the Supreme Court case of 1960 Flemming v. Nestor, the decision was based upon that retirees do not have a contractual right to a particular level of Social Security benefits[2]. In other words the Social Security System is a “pay as you go” system on automatic pilot where Social Security consists of a tax that is put in to the system and the functional out put of government transfers therefore there is no legally binding connection between the two. As established by the Supreme Court Decision that payroll tax creates a “no claim” to benefits. As a notation as mentioned before It’s the moral obligation of self governing people who elect our public servants that “We the People” entrust our payroll tax dollars to the public servants that we elect to make the moral and responsible decision. Why? Since there is no connection between the right of claim to benefits and the redistribution of monetary funds Congress have the fundamental powers to reduce or to increase benefits or to redesign the program all together with out trespassing on any legally recognized right. As noted by the Cato Institute “Since legislatures cannot legally bind future legislatures, the existence and level of payroll taxes and Social Security transfers are a matter of popular will and legislative discretion.”[3]
As to the Social Security System and the “Great Society” it is Obvious that the “New Liberals” perhaps best, ‘social justice’, liberalism challenges this intimate connection between personal liberty and private properties. Since the implementation of the Social Security System and the “Great Society” that was created by the older generation from 1935 to 1970. New Liberalism, a new design of social justice was just loosing faith in the free market and society. Their political ideology and agendas was now placed and rooted in to their faith in government as a means of supervising economic life. The New Liberalism (welfare state) is ever increasing at the expense of the tax payers and thus that no social group advances at the cost of another which is nothing more then redistribution of wealth, the intereference and control of your life.
[1] New York Times, Saturday, October 24, 1980. Carter and Reagan presidential debates.
[2] 1960 Flemming v. Nestor, the decision was based upon that retirees do not have a contractual right to a particular level of Social Security benefits.
[3] June 28, 2005 SSP No. 34 Noble Lies, Liberal Purposes, and Personal Retirement Accounts by Will Wilkinson. Cato Institute
A green designer says we need to save energy by making our architecture more efficient.
I was browsing though Newsweek on line and found this article
Buildings That Can Breathe:
THE FUTURE OF ENERGY,
A green designer says we need to save energy by making our architecture more efficient.
By Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 9, 2008
Aug. 18-25, 2008 issue
I thought it was great even Teddy Roosevelt would be proud of.
Architect William McDonough is a graduate from Yale University. He is prominent Architect within his own right that designs energy/noise efficient buildings and ideas for fortune 500 and world wide companies.
I would have to say that technology is becoming progressive within this era when energy is concerned. Matter of fact in any era, energy is always an issue because energy is precious and costly to extract from the biosphere that we live in. It fuels our economy which provides a wider range of free markets and the freedoms that we enjoy. The American people are not ignorant and as a matter of fact they install the many products to conserve energy because the use of energy is costly. The American people are not ignorant and the majority does conserve the cost of their fuel usage whether it is in the home, work or the car.
As these new technologies are introduced majority of the population are not psychologically ready and unfamiliar with the technology because they live within their comfort zone. For example a $490 million sewage-treatment plant was finally built because of the sewage-treatment plant psychological operation which sewage water is converted into to clean drinkable water. Yet there are uncertainty and a level of distrust among the community on having built a sewage-treatment plant in their community. The distrust was not company but the risk of health issues that may occur. In other areas of technology concerning water, William McDonough uses Cradle to Cradle-certified products that he incorporates in to existing manufacturing plants which enables the manufacturing plant to meet higher standard of stewardship which will not to harm the wildlife or the human population near or within the vicinity of the plant. He is quoted to say “The water coming out of the textile mill is as clean as the water going in, which is Swiss drinking water. Now when a textile mill has effluent that's clean enough to drink, you're entering the next industrial revolution. All of a sudden, there's nothing to fear from human production[1].” Even if we were to look at this modern marvel the advancement of obtaining drinking water is one of the most important public health advances in the last 150 years.
As to harness free energy from the environment, William McDonough received a phone call from a university. The dean of the school wanted to renovate a hall and to have it energy efficient. The project would cost $5 million dollars. William McDonough response to him was: "Don't do it! You'll destroy the building! Go raise $1 million and put up a megawatt of wind power on a family farm in western Minnesota. Let that farmer send his kids to college, pay his mortgage and you'll produce a megawatt of power, which is more than you'll need for your building."[2] For myself I see a larger picture for the farmer’s community and for the Farmer himself. The farmer has an economic opportunity and advantage to capitalize on such a product. Just imagine, if it cost the university $5,000,000 dollars to renovate. The university can convert those dollars over the long term of 100 years. The farmer can lease part of his land for $50,000 a month. Not bad to supplement income and thus there could advantages of creating new jobs within the farming community. As I had said before and so many Republicans and Conservatives say, that energy fuels our economy which provides a wider range of free markets and the freedoms that we enjoy within our republic, the United States of America.
[1] Newsweek: Buildings that can breath - Aug 9, 2008
[2] Newsweek: Buildings that can breath - Aug 9, 2008
Buildings That Can Breathe:
THE FUTURE OF ENERGY,
A green designer says we need to save energy by making our architecture more efficient.
By Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 9, 2008
Aug. 18-25, 2008 issue
I thought it was great even Teddy Roosevelt would be proud of.
Architect William McDonough is a graduate from Yale University. He is prominent Architect within his own right that designs energy/noise efficient buildings and ideas for fortune 500 and world wide companies.
I would have to say that technology is becoming progressive within this era when energy is concerned. Matter of fact in any era, energy is always an issue because energy is precious and costly to extract from the biosphere that we live in. It fuels our economy which provides a wider range of free markets and the freedoms that we enjoy. The American people are not ignorant and as a matter of fact they install the many products to conserve energy because the use of energy is costly. The American people are not ignorant and the majority does conserve the cost of their fuel usage whether it is in the home, work or the car.
As these new technologies are introduced majority of the population are not psychologically ready and unfamiliar with the technology because they live within their comfort zone. For example a $490 million sewage-treatment plant was finally built because of the sewage-treatment plant psychological operation which sewage water is converted into to clean drinkable water. Yet there are uncertainty and a level of distrust among the community on having built a sewage-treatment plant in their community. The distrust was not company but the risk of health issues that may occur. In other areas of technology concerning water, William McDonough uses Cradle to Cradle-certified products that he incorporates in to existing manufacturing plants which enables the manufacturing plant to meet higher standard of stewardship which will not to harm the wildlife or the human population near or within the vicinity of the plant. He is quoted to say “The water coming out of the textile mill is as clean as the water going in, which is Swiss drinking water. Now when a textile mill has effluent that's clean enough to drink, you're entering the next industrial revolution. All of a sudden, there's nothing to fear from human production[1].” Even if we were to look at this modern marvel the advancement of obtaining drinking water is one of the most important public health advances in the last 150 years.
As to harness free energy from the environment, William McDonough received a phone call from a university. The dean of the school wanted to renovate a hall and to have it energy efficient. The project would cost $5 million dollars. William McDonough response to him was: "Don't do it! You'll destroy the building! Go raise $1 million and put up a megawatt of wind power on a family farm in western Minnesota. Let that farmer send his kids to college, pay his mortgage and you'll produce a megawatt of power, which is more than you'll need for your building."[2] For myself I see a larger picture for the farmer’s community and for the Farmer himself. The farmer has an economic opportunity and advantage to capitalize on such a product. Just imagine, if it cost the university $5,000,000 dollars to renovate. The university can convert those dollars over the long term of 100 years. The farmer can lease part of his land for $50,000 a month. Not bad to supplement income and thus there could advantages of creating new jobs within the farming community. As I had said before and so many Republicans and Conservatives say, that energy fuels our economy which provides a wider range of free markets and the freedoms that we enjoy within our republic, the United States of America.
[1] Newsweek: Buildings that can breath - Aug 9, 2008
[2] Newsweek: Buildings that can breath - Aug 9, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
My interests in science.
In about 1978 when I was 9 years of age, a new mini series aired on PBS. That new mini series was Dr. Carl Sagan: "The Cosmos". For those who are not familiar with Dr. Carl Sagan book or the mini series. Dr. Carl Sagan brought together the ideas, exploration and possibilities of space travel and the many possibilities that life exist else where in the cosmos. After watching the entire series my interest in earth science and biology soared to as new hobby. I read many books and journals about the subject which perpetuated me to study the sciences in high school and college. My level of thinking enlightened me to think about science in a way that there are many explanations of natural phenomenon that's within our own space and universe. Of course in Latin, plural phenomena which is the object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition. Even though the mind processes thought "The Cosmos" was some what philosophical which Dr. Carl Sagan used the metaphysical form and his empirical skills to integrate theoretical ideas that the chances are that humans may take new flight to near by galaxies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
