Joe Biden's Big Adventure: The G20 Climate Summit and Meeting with Pope Francis

It seems we've entered a new stage of insanity as we go deeper and deeper into this dystopian rabbit hole. Take for example climate change.  We've been berated by Democrats and those on the Left for at least a decade about the dangers of global warming (rebranded under the name of "climate change").

 So, why is it that Biden goes to Scotland for an all important convocation of world leaders to discuss about climate change, and what do we see? Biden snoozing for all the world to see! True, he made a speech on climate change at the COP26 meeting which was far from inspiring as well as the usual glad handing and picture posing.

 Much of what he said has been said before, and as usual, ignored afterwards. We all know that nothing, and I mean nothing, will happen, at least in the United States, without the support of the corporate giants who just so happen to own the government. Besides, unless the world's worse polluter, China, isn't a 100% onboard and willing to put its yen where its mouth is, nothing anyone else does will amount to a hill of beans. 75% of all its lakes and waterways are unfit for human usage and wearing masks is common in the cities because of pollution which is six times world health standards.

China has the economic clout to completely derail any realistic chance to curtail climate change unless the West and other industrialized nations acquiesce to what it wants when it wants it. Key to its potential list of demands for any actual compliance to "clean up its act" would be cutting support of Taiwan and quite possibly "looking away" should Beijing decide to "incorporate" the island nation back into the fold.  Imagine how that would affect America's already damaged prestige abroad.

China, while not quite a global superpower on par with the U.S. is still too powerful economically and militarily to be bullied or intimidated by anyone, including the U.S.. At the same time, attempts by U.S. "chicken hawks" to rekindle the Cold War with Russia through sanitations, and propaganda, is only driving Russia closer to the China. Given Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas, is that really a good idea? Besides, Russia is potentially the better friend where our dealings with China is concerned. 

Along with abandoning Taiwan, accepting the South China Sea as de facto Chinese territorial waters would be another demand.  I wouldn't be surprised if China also demanded concessions from the other power in the region. Both nations has engaged in posturing and the occasional gunplay along their common border for several years.

China has also become closer pals with India's archenemy to the west, Pakistan.  This present an obvious potential double edge sword given Pakistan's deep Islamic roots and connections to terrorist groups and China's troubles with its Uyghur Muslim population in the Xinjiang Province and "rumors" of some Uyghurs being imprisoned in concentration camps. The same can be said of China's and Iran's strategic arrangement, which may be based more on the idea of common enemy, the U.S., than anything substantial.

China's fishing fleet (with naval support) has also been inserting itself in India's traditional sovereign waters. It's also affected other nations dependant on sea harvests to feed their people and bolster their economies. The worst part of the Chinese intrusion is that they typically use huge shipping vessels which can scoop up more in a single catch than local fisherman catch in a year.  

The result is a depleted environment with fewer profitable catches, smaller fish, lobsters, and so forth. If this is allowed to continue, you'll see the economies of nations like Japan, India, both Koreas, the Philippines, and Indonesia deeply affected thanks to higher prices for less available fish---the staple of their diets, and the grim possible of rising poverty and even starvation if not curtailed. 

As an aside, China has also been busy buying up options on natural mineral resources throughout the world, most notably Africa and Latin America along with the rights to fresh water sources (not unlike a few American corporations). It's worth noting that they pay little concern to the environmental damage they cause. With what all that is at stake, you'd think Biden would want to take his naps elsewhere or have someone more "awake" sitting in on these discussions.

Another (we'll call it "interesting") episode took place just before the climate conference, and that was Biden's meeting with Pope Francis in Vatican City, ahead of the G20 Summit and his meeting with France's Macron. Biden, as most people know, is a devout Catholic which makes his stand, as a Democrat, on abortion rather precarious. Some conservative bishops have been calling for Biden's exclusion from communion because of it.

The meeting, Biden's fourth with Pope Francis, but first as President, started off with his usual tired old quip ("Hi, I'm Jill's husband"). Biden presented the Pope with a gold coin depicting the Seal of the United States on one side and outline of Delaware on the other and "the 261st unit" his son had served with (the 261st is a tactical signal brigade which provides command and control to other units).

Officially, the meeting had been scheduled to discuss  a variety of issues ranging from climate change, poverty, the COVID pandemic, and global economics. However rumors persisted that Biden's real agenda concerned whether or not he would receive communion. The Vatican has declined to comment.

It's should be pointed out that the 75 minute meeting (unusually long by Vatican standards) was to be televised live but for some reason, was shut down about halfway in without any comment beyond the Pope and Biden wanting to discuss issues "informally"...but that's not all that allegedly happened.

According to a tweet from Amy Tarkanian, the former Nevada Republican State Chairwoman and wife of Republican Attorney Danny Tarkanian, the meeting with the Pope ran usually long because...how to say this politely...President Biden had a "bathroom incident" which had to be dealt with first.  Ms. Tarkanian even managed to post a picture to backup her tweet. Almost instantaneously, the tweet and the picture went viral. Not unexpectedly, comments (and snarky remarks) poured in.

Here's the problem as I see it. While I'm not a big fan of "Slow Joe" by a long shot, we need to remember that Biden is an "well worn" 78 year old with a lot of health issues (he'll be 79 on November 20th). Never mind the rumors and allegations of dementia or other cognitive illnesses, Biden has suffered two brain aneurysms (one actually ruptured) and developed deep vein thrombosis along with pulmonary embolism.  Brain aneurysms can lead to strokes and be possibly fatal if left untreated. 

In watching Biden's speeches from the "get-go" of his presidential campaign, it appears obvious to just about everyone (even anti-Trumpsters) that something is wrong with Ole Joe. It appeared he was being coached and fed answers practically every step of the way in his speeches (especially during debates where wires from an ear piece could be seen under his jacket and Biden doesn't wear a hearing aid).

When Biden speaks without a teleprompter, his remarks are often muddled and occasionally incoherent, but then again, Obama's speeches weren't worth a damn without a teleprompter either.  It's been reported that he requires questions be submitted in advanced when being interviewed, and he's always got someone there off camera coaching him. Often he doesn't even take unscripted questions from reporters; he just makes his comments and walks off stage. Clearly there's something very wrong.

This leads to another observation. Without Ms. Tarkanian's tweet and picture I would have chalked this is up just another partisan low, albeit an especially cruel one. But there was a picture, which if real, just makes me feel sorry for Biden (the picture I saw looks like it was taken on a golf course and you can't see the man's face, which seems phony to me). It's also a sad commentary on society in just how fast everyone was to make fun of an obviously sick old man...President or not. Democrat or not.

It's obvious, or should be, to everyone that Joe Biden should never ever had been made president. Yes, he was qualified (more so than Obama or Trump). However, he also had a questionable past which included admissions of plagiarism, wanting to cut Social Security (which he called an "entitlement"), support for the Hyde Amendment (which prohibited using Medicaid dollars for abortions under any circumstances), support of NAFTA and claims of being a "fair trader" (anti-union), and so on.

Face it, if anybody, and I mean anybody but Trump was the Republican nominee, Joe Biden wouldn't be president right now, such was the visceral hatred for the man. Given the pandemic, the vaccination revolt and resulting labor shortage plus China's growing clout and aggressiveness, signs of inflation,rising prices, the Afghanistan debacle, and America's deep (and largely manufactured) divisions, Biden is the wrong man at the wrong time in American and world history.

Nevertheless, Trump was the GOP nominee just when America is more divided than at any time since just before the Civil War. China is on the move, as are many of the terrorist organizations who perceive a weak America. Several intelligent agencies now predict a major terrorist event in the U.S. within the next five to ten years. Biden also just recently made another gaff when he "apologized" to world leaders for the Trump Presidency and its policies.

Folks, in case you didn't know, there are several things the former and sitting presidents have informally agreed to do and not to do. One of those "rules" is to never openly criticized another president or their policies, but he did. In doing so, Biden in affect disavowed the Trump Presidency. If you want to bring the country together, that's not how you do it. All Biden succeeded in doing was throwing gasoline on a raging bonfire.

It's worth noting that there was no hue and cry from the Republican Establishment or the corporate controlled media since all sides see the Trump Presidency as nothing more than an aberration; a folly created by the unwashed and uncouth masses who didn't know any better than not to play the game---vote for a pre-vetted cardboard cutout on the Right, ignored the pre-vetted rich "socialist" insider on the Left, and finally allow Hillary her long overdue coronation (and stay tuned for one "Benghazi" of a presidency!). But that's not how it happened.

What happened was that the Establishment was challenged, albeit a bit haphazardly, by a non-politician. This was more than the usual campaign rhetoric and meaningless promises we've all come to expect. This was real. Despite every underhanded and dirty trick they could conjure, "The Donald" remained. But as the reelection loomed, Nancy Pelosi herself said that Trump "won't be allowed to be president again". Allowed? Isn't that our decision? As it turned out, apparently not.

Joe Biden was elected (or "selected" if you prefer) as a his reward for years of dedicated service to the party and the ruling Oligarchy. However, more and more it appears that he's little more than a placeholder. If you agree with that premise, you by default would agree that the American President has become hollow; a figurehead or puppet.

However, that doesn't mean the presidency itself has become equally hollow. It remains the "Imperial Presidency" except it's those behind the scenes, by whatever name you care to give it--- the "secret cabal", "deep state", the "shadow government", the "Corporate State", or simply the Oligarchy who remain firmly in charge of all the apparatuses of real power in and out of government. 

It's up to us regardless of party, race, gender, orientation, religion, or any other artificial divisions to restore the government of our Founders. But, rest assured, time is quickly running out and our enemies aren't waiting around to see what we decide. So, I ask you, what will you do? 

 

How China's Expanding Fishing Fleet Is Depleting the World's Oceans

China and Iran: Economic, Political, and Military Relations

Why 'Poopy Pants Biden' Memes Trended After POTUS Meeting with Pope Francis

A Closer Look At Joe Biden's Health

 

 

 

It's Good To Be King Part II

As you'll recall, I mentioned discussing politics and current events with a friend of mine recently. I had just posted an article and was doing research for my next articles. During our conversation, he suggested a topic---being King (or Queen) for a year. Whatever you decree becomes the law of the land, but it had to be practical. So, after considering the possibilities, I decided to give it a go. Besides, it sounded like fun and would me clarify my thoughts on some topics. As a disclaimer, none of my comments, either in this edition or in Part I, are set in stone. Situations change. Woe befall those who never evolve. People should continually educate themselves and be willing to change their opinions as the situation dictates. So, with that said, let's continue with "It's Good To Be King" Part II.

Next on my royal agenda would be to overhaul the tax system. Personally, I don't think the tax code should be any longer than short term paper. I think we need to institute either a consumption tax or a flat tax. Under the first option, you pay a tax on whatever you buy. If you buy only a little, you only pay a little; great for those on fixed or limited incomes. If you're a big spender, you'll pay more because you can obviously afford more. The second option would simply be a fixed tax that you'll pay regardless based on your gross income. Of course, certain items such as food, medicine are exempt along with income that's double the poverty rate.

No more NAFTA. No more TPP. No more secret trade agreements. We will focus on Fair Trade instead; one that protects our labor market from unfair foreign trade practices. If a foreign government underwrites a particular industry in order to undercut our market, it may be necessary to support that market domestically in order to protect domestic jobs. The next project I would embark on is to reduce US military presence overseas. Currently, we have over 1000 bases overseas (the actually number is publically unknown). In some cases, we are there to provide backup in case that nation is attack. In other cases, we are there as the defacto military force on behalf of that country (Japan comes to mind). I think that unless we're being compensated, we need to withdraw our military from any country where our national interests aren't directly impacted. Along with that, I think we should seek closer cooperation with Russia which would go a long way in reducing global tensions, plus both the US and Russia could work jointly on certain global issues militarily and economically. Besides, we alone have enough nukes that no matter what Russia or China do independently or jointly, we could literally blow the Earth into a cosmic dust cloud a 1000 times over. Not even cockroaches would survive.

I would take the savings and rebuild our infrastructure. Internally, our highways, roads, bridges, and transportation systems are as decrepit as the government in Washington. We need to refocus on a train system similar to Europe's or Japan's. We need trolleys and subways too. We need to update and secure our power and water stations, and yes, we need a serious commitment to solar and wind power too. We need to see ourselves as conservators of the Earth, not just for ourselves but for future generations. Besides, this would be great for our national unemployment. The jobs and contracts would be open to all US citizens and domestically owned companies; especially small businesses. Finally, there would be a minimum tax paid by all corporations. No more making billions, obtaining taxpayer paid loans,tax abatements, federal contracts, corporate officers making tens of millions of dollars, and paying nothing. As an aside, I would not tax savings accounts under $50,000 in order to encourage people to save. The US has the lowest savings rate of any industrialized nation. Additionally, this would make more money available to loan and would help keep interest rates low. While Social Security would be remain intact, individuals would be allow to invest up to 50% that amount themselves---with a signed "no-harm" agreement.

With respect to national healthcare, I do favor some form of minimum national healthcare. The fact is that some individuals simply can't afford healthcare on their own and small businesses can't afford to offer it, which is key in attracting and keeping qualified applicants. Therefore, I would support a single payer which offers a guaranteed minimum coverage with an option to buy additional insurance in the marketplace if you so desire. This makes it easier and cheaper to operate, help those unable to acquire insurance otherwise, and keep small businesses competitive in the employee marketplace. All federal employees, including elected officials, will be on the same plan. Lastly, members of Congress and the Presidency would not receive lifetime salaries. They would receive what any other federal employee receives for the same length of service. The Presidency will have the option of either using two Secret Service agents for a maximum of five years or hiring private security for the same costs.

Speaking of employment, non-citizens (aka illegal immigrants) should be deported. While we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws, and those laws must and will be enforced. Anyone assisting these individuals violate US immigration laws will be fined, starting with the first offense. Repeat offenses will result in steeper fines and jail time. Employers will face suspension of their business license starting at 90 days. Repeated violations will extend to six month suspensions, one year suspensions, and finally, a permanent suspension. The company president and senior board officers will also face up to six months in jail. In addition, no federal business will be conducted with any company if these individuals serve as a corporate officer. Any religious or non-profit institution or business will face a loss of their tax exempt status and business license starting with 90 days and continuing along the same lines as the corporations. Anyone who wants to be here needs to have a work permit. Anyone who wants to stay here had best take the appropriate legal steps to do so. No individual here illegally will be allowed to use any taxpayer services. By the way, the forms will be in English. In addition, all illegal immigrants will be fingerprinted and photo scanned along with a DNA sample to aide in future detection (this would be especially useful for those who are members of criminal gangs or have a felony record). They would then be taken to the nearest embassy of origin and deposited there for deportation. The cost of processing the detainees would be deducted from any aid provided to that country, so there would be no need for a wall.

Continuing with the topic of immigrants, I'm not sure I would follow President Trump's travel ban, which seems to keep hitting legal roadblocks. Of course, the idea to restrict travel from nations with large pools of potential terrorists isn't bad. Nevertheless, I don't think I would impose an outright ban. I would, however, impose stricter security screening on individuals who come from certain countries with high incidents of terrorist and extremist activity, including nations like Saudi Arabia since that's where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from as well as Ben Laden. We should, however, allow individuals such as the Assyrian Christians, Yazidis, and Kurds, who are being aggressively persecuted by hate driven terrorists like ISIS or Al Qaeda, and prohibited by countries like Turkey and Syria from leaving, a preferred immigration status. In conjunction with this, I would employ a similar scanning procedure as used by the Israelis. They utilize a profile type visual scan and a relatively simply monitoring process. To date, the less evasive Israeli procedure has been highly successful everyplace it's been employed.

One more thing on this topic. In accepting immigrants, we need to take a look at culture and religion. While some will choke on the terms "racist" or "Islamophobia" or some other popular buzz word, we have to realize that some religions and cultures are simply not compatible with Western democratic values. When they demand a second or third class status for women, demand others refrain from flying an American flag, infringe on others (notably females) walking down the street or practicing their religion, so-called "honor" murders, saying the US Pledge of Allegiance, female genital mutilation, selling certain products, or even that we adapt to their religious laws and/or language, they're in the wrong place. If you come to this country, we will try to be tolerant. However, do not expect us to conform to your laws and traditions --- religious or otherwise. If you can't do that, don't bother coming.

With respect to the prison system, we have some serious work to do here. The US incarcerates more individuals than any other nation in the world. True, we have a lot of crime, especially in the inner cities. But we also have some outdated laws and some outdated notions about punishment. First, all first offenders of misdemeanors should not be housed with harden criminals. The emphasis here should be on getting these people back on track. Most flunked their way through the public education system, which also has to change. Nevertheless, remedial education to reach at least a 10th grade level should be required if they graduated or assistance with getting a GED if they didn't. Next, learning a productive trade like dry walling, painting, carpentry, etc., followed by a job assistance and mandatory counseling program which includes avoidance of drugs, writing resumes and developing interview skills. As for felons, if the crime is non-violent, they should be eligible for the same program after 1/3 to 1/2 of the time is served.

In addition, if they stay out of trouble for one year, all voting privileges should be restored (it should be automatically restored if they serve all their time and remain out of trouble for one year). For life sentences, violent offenders or repeat felons, they should have the option of entering a long term rehab program to learn a skill to be used within the prison and/or the opportunity to earn a GED and to take various continuing education courses. For those who fail this program or opt not to enroll, they should be used for state projects such as picking up waste, working on roadways, etc. All federal prisons should be as self-sustaining as possible, that includes growing their own vegetables, laundry, data entry, etc. I would, however, remove all gym equipment. The last we should want is felons having the time to beef up and become physically stronger than the guards. All prisoners should also receive "salt peter" or other medication to reduce any "anger issues" or other aggression. Lastly, as "King", the drug policy in this nation would need to be seriously overhauled. Certain drugs like marijuana should be decriminalized (and those convicted released), while alcohol, perhaps the worse drug of all, should receive a harsher penalty on par with hard drugs instead of a "wink and nod".

So, what about other issues? In area of foreign relations, as I alluded to above, the emphasis would be on Fair Trade. I think we should seek out commonalities with other countries and focus on ways to grow and expand that, provided it's a reciprocal! As for these whinny-ass countries like North Korea who've learned to survived by blackmailing the West, I say too bad. I wouldn't hesitate to call their bluff. Either they'll attack like they've been threatening to do ...and lose...so we'll be done with them once and for all, or they'll lose credibility and face being overthrown, so again, we'll be done with them (of course, we'll do our best to help the people). We will stop interfering in foreign affairs; specifically in overthrowing governments the ruling corporate Oligarchy dislikes. We will NOT jump through hoops to appease any religious or racial minority. This is America, learn to accept it or leave it. We don't own you anything for simply existing except the opportunity to make your way. If you have any questions, please refer to our instruction manual---the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Regarding gender matters, I don't really have a problem with same-sex marriages or unions; call it what you like. I also don't need it waved in my face all the time either. Some argue that "God", "Jesus", "Allah" or whoever disapproves, you should remember that it's unlikely these individuals believe your deity, and no one has the right to impose their religious or moral interpretations on anybody (that's the problem we're having with Islamic extremists remember?). Besides, love is love and if there's one thing there is a shortage of, that's it. I can't see any god having an problem with that can you? Now for transgender, "undefined" genders, "gender neutral", and so forth. You are born with either a dominate "Y" or "X" chromosome. That means that no matter how you "self-identify", you're biologically either a male or female. If you're male, use the men's room. If you're a female, use the women's room. A compromise would be use of gender neutral public restrooms or dressing rooms. They'd be easy enough to set up, and most place already have them. As for the Armed Forces, we have an all voluntary military. If you join, don't expect any special treatment. You will be treated just like everyone else, which is as it should be. If this "offends" you, then maybe you're not ready to go out in public yet.

Well, there you go. Now you know how my "royal" reign would play out. What would you do? In reality, little to none of it would ever come to pass. There are far too many special and vested interests to see any real change. Besides, power is never willingly surrendered. In our current Oligarchic system, the figureheads are replaced while those who actually control the power and wealth in this nation remain behind the curtains. Could things change? Without a doubt. If were any other way, the Oligarchy wouldn't be so desperate to divide and confuse us. They spend a great deal of time and money to pit us against each other; to divide us along every conceivable line possible. They've ensured that they control the elections; the media; and as much as possible, the public message. This last election showed just how flawed their system is. Their "chosen one" failed to be "crowned"; an usurper was elected instead. Now they will devote their efforts to discredit and delegitimize that individual and their administration as much as possible, and in doing so, to set the stage for a dramatic comeback fitting of any epic from the golden years of Hollywood. So, grab a box of popcorn and something to drink everyone. The prequel is starting. The Empire is about to strike back.




Another Opinion: It's Good To Be King Part I

Did Donald Trump Really Save 1000 Carrier Jobs?

I've been involved in politics in one fashion or other for close to 40 years now, and if there's one thing I can say about it, it is this. Politics has never ceased to amaze me. President-elect Donald Trump, perhaps the most unpopular incoming President in American history with the possible exceptions of Lincoln and Kennedy, recently stepped up and made a pre-inauguration promise to the heating and air conditioning giant Carrier that if they kept the Indiana plant in the US instead of moving it to Mexico, he would give them a tax abatement; that is, a break on their corporate taxes. Now here is Trump, not even President yet, and he's living up to his reputation as the "Master of the Art of the Deal" which has earned him billions. Of course, it doesn't hurt that the plant is located in the home state of his choice for Vice President, Mike Pence.

In exchange for keeping the plant at home, which allegedly will save about 1000 jobs, Carrier will also get a break on its taxes. However, that's a deal Trump can't realistically keep because Congress, not the President, is responsible for controlling the federal purse (if you'll recall, that was an issue when the Supreme Court overstepped its Constitutional Authority regarding the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare, by rewriting the bill as a tax). That is, only Congress can approve tariffs, taxes, and that includes tax breaks to companies or industries. However, Vice President-elect Pence remains Indiana's Governor for a few more weeks, and as Governor, Pence could offer the company a break on state taxes as well as other incentives (with final approval of the state legislature). Secondly, Chuck Jones, the President of United Steelworkers Local 1999, which represents the employees at Carrier, said neither Trump or Carrier involved the union in the process. Lastly, Carrier had originally said they were considering moving approximately 1400 to 2000 jobs south of the border. The deal saves just 1000 of those jobs, which is still a substantial number.

"The Donald" has also publicly said that he would revisit President Clinton's North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA, which pass crammed down the throats of American workers and small businesses despite loud objections from unions and small business owners. As some of you may recall, NAFTA was supposed to be some wondrous trade agreement that would simultaneously bring economic prosperity to businesses, manufacturers, and unions operating in Canada, Mexico, and the US. It was to serve as something akin to the EU and create a single North American economic trade zone. Instead, it helped Mexico by providing a cheap labor zone to bring parts and reship them back to the US or Canada. Meanwhile, the US and to a lesser extent, Canada, loss numerous, mostly middle class and union based, jobs. NAFTA, in effect, virtually destroyed the middle class in general and union jobs in particular. Now, we have President Obama working on a new secret trade agreement, Transpacific Trade Agreement, as the second linchpin to "opening borders". According to Trump, before the US proceeds further with the TTP, he wants to revisit NAFTA and possibly renegotiate some of the various agreements, which I think could be a good thing for small business owners and workers---especially union workers.

However, things aren't quite as they seem with newly elected President-to-be which I find a little troubling. In addition to taking credit for keeping Carrier in Indy, Trump claims that through his personal intervention, he was able to keep one of the Ford plants in Louisville, Kentucky running. According to Trump, Ford was planning on moving its Lincoln SUV operations to Mexico until he intervened through his "personal contacts" to keep production where it is. However, Ford representatives stated that there was never any intentions to move the operation to Mexico or anywhere else. Hum...well, ok then. Meanwhile, Pratt & Whitney, which manufactures jet engines and other components for the military announced through its parent company, United Technologies, that it would be closing some of its manufacturing plants and relocating operations to Mexico in order to save costs (in part through the use of non-union labor). President-elect Trump stated that he would see to it that United Technologies, which also owns Carrier, would be cut out of any future federal contracts if it did.

It is seriously questionable whether Trump, or any President for that matter, would have the authority to any say in who did or didn't get a federal contract. Of course, there are specific guidelines that everyone bidding on government contract must comply with, but assuming they do, what could a President really do? I guess he could, as Obama has been alleged to have done to some conservative groups, sic the IRS on them and harass them at every turn, but I doubt he'd actually do that given the amount of money these companies funnel into various political campaign coffers and the clout their lobbyist have on Capitol Hill.

So, what should we make of all this then? Is it a bunch of posturing or is it something more? Personally, I think it shows Trumps lack of political experience. What may work in executive board rooms doesn't translate well to the quid-pro-quo world of politics. There are also certain federal guidelines which are in place for a reason. Namely, to prevent political intimidation and retribution, no matter how well intended. I think we're also seeing Trump attempting to break the "Status Quo" mold of previous Presidents and at least to try to be independent. However, I think he will find that the Presidency isn't as powerful as it is perceived to be. There are limits to its power and ability to influence within some very defined boundaries.

Still, we seem to be witnessing Donald Trump's honest and sincere efforts to protect American jobs and stepping out front to lead; something Washington has been in severe short supply of for decades. People are beyond sick and tired of Washington politics. They know the political system is broken beyond any realistic hope of reform. They witnessed the open manipulation and biased boldfaced lying of the corporate news media. America is no longer a Constitutional or democratic republic. It is an Oligarchy with two sets of laws and two sets of standards.. A corporate/political ruling class on the one hand and all the rest of us---their economic serfs---on the other.

Trump, I believe, is our final hope of any peaceful restoration of the government that once was ours, and even at that, we are seeing daily protests by those who naively think that working with or within the system will actually change anything. They are just as stuck in this quagmire as the rest of us; maybe even more so since they are more dependent (think "chained") to the status quo than some and yet suffer the most for it. Meanwhile, the powers that be are doing their very best to keep each us divided in every possible way. The more we're at each other's throats, the less likely we are to turn our attention and anger toward them. Therefore, before jumping on the corporate media's bandwagon criticizing the President-elect, why don't we wait until he actually the becomes the President and give him some time to prove himself one way or the other. I suspect that if we give him a fair chance, we might be pleasantly surprised, and if not, then we're no worse off than we are now.


After Trump pledged to keep Carrier jobs in US, company says it won't move nearly 1000 jobs to Mexico
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/donald-trump-has-reached-a-deal-with-a-manufacturer-to-keep-jobs-from-going-to-mexico/?utm_term=.6a30144fe074


Trump didn't save as many Carrier jobs as he claimed
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/02/news/companies/trump-carrier-plant-mexico/index.html


Timeline: 1000 Carrier jobs saved from moving to Mexico
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/timeline-1000-carrier-jobs-saved-from-moving-to-mexico


Trump & Carrier reach deal to keep 1000 Indiana jobs from Moving to Mexico
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/30/trump-carrier-reach-deal-keep-1000-indiana-jobs-moving-mexico

The Game Plan

Let's assume illegal immigration and the blatant refusal of the US government to secure the border, is simply part of a secret agreement--an addendum if you will--to NAFTA, which at its heart was designed to create an open border between Canada, the US, and Mexico, was extended to some of other nations south of border. Suppose further that the Latin American nations have chosen either to enact that portion of the agreement that allows its citizens unrestrained access to the US either directly or indirectly through Mexico, and because Washington was unable to "sell" NAFTA (though it passed, it has remained unpopular)---for whatever reasons such as a downturn in the economy, job outsourcing, union opposition, crime, unexpected prolonged wars or especially open immigration, decided to "dump" their children on our border, perhaps as a pointed reminder, or frustration over Washington's foot dragging? If true, does the hidden terms work both ways? What if Americans or Canadians decided to "invade" Mexico or South America in droves? How would their governments react? One or two, or even a few dozen would likely be imprisoned since they have (ironically) a no tolerance policy for illegals or those who aide them in anyway. But what about a few hundred or even thousands? What if these illegal Americans or Canadians demanded access to public services--such as health care or education, and in English? If Mexico's refusal to release a single US citizen, US Marine Andrew Tahmooreisi, is any indication, neither the US or its Latin American neighbors are prepared to deal with reverse illegal immigration, but I think they'd certainly be willing to discuss the situation with us.

There seems to be a global interest in the concept of "democratic liberalism", or as it's sometimes referred to, "friendly capitalism without borders". Think of it as democratic socialism as practiced by, say, Germany as opposed to Scandinavia. Social services, now paid for by States or a federal government, would instead be paid for through a transnational organization of some sort, perhaps the UN or one of its agencies. There has been, after all, much interest in expanding its role along with the influence of the UN, WTO, and/or World Bank, which collectively already controls much of the world's finances (along with the Federal Reserve) and dispersal of capital.

How could this be accomplished? The simplest tool would be a tax levied on a federal government and thus either directly or indirectly on the public. State specific programs would of course remain in place. This transnational "public welfare" tax would detail its own unique qualifications, which would be resident neutral and administered by each host country (notice "host" as opposed to "sovereign"). Since this would eliminate all or most other federal programs, administrative costs should be generally cheaper. The formula for taxation could be based on GDP, which would mean poorer countries would pay the least while richer countries would pay the most. While one could argue against this loss of sovereignty, it could increase the globalization of the commerce and through its concept of "open borders", enhance the development of worker movements since movement of workers would be unimpeded; something I'm sure would be unintended by the powers that be.

But as alluded to earlier, something happened. The US isn't playing the game as it's supposed to. There's the fact that America is becoming more fascist; certainly more "police state" like. To be more precise, corporations are behaving more feudalistic. In keeping with the concept, our national government is assuming the role of a dukedom; that, they are acting like overlords or administrators serving their lieges and lords. There is nothing "democratic" or "socialistic" here since we are not becoming more democratic by seceding more power to the People, nor are the People more in control of their own collective destinies, while government serves less our needs and more the needs of K Street and the 1%. States are increasingly losing powers guaranteed under the Constitution as well and must beg with hat-in-hand on bended knee for the funds to keep local governments going.

Meanwhile, threats to the expanding modern feudal State continues. Putin's Russia, and to a lesser degree, China and India (which tends to hedge its bets thanks to job outsourcing), have resisted dominance by the global "McState" and are threatening to undermine the US dollar as the defacto global currency; a currency backed solely on the "faith and trust" of a bankrupt government--economically, politically, and morally. Should they succeed, it would collapse the US economy as our unsustainable debts become due but it would have dire consequences worldwide in this interconnected world economy, eventually collapse the economies of the rest of the world like a house of cards. As the saying goes, when the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold, and this cold would be terminal.

Then there's the situation in the Middle East, which appears, at least to yours truly, to have been initally an attempt to increase control of oil reserves and oil production, by these feudalistic corporations and away from these artificially created nation-states, and now appears to have spunned out of control. We are now faced with brutal terror organizations which we helped to create, arm, train, and finance, to deal with the last terroristic organization which we created, armed, trained, and financed ad nauseam.

These terrorist groups, which are being portrayed by the corporate media, to operate virtually at will, could, in truth, be easily snuffed out by the power of the US military. But what's the point in that? At present, "terror" is a useful tool in the arsenal of the Corporate State. It inspires fear at home, and thus in the name of security, increases the "demand" for security, or to call a spade a spade, a police state. After all, businesses require stability in order to operate. People require a sense of safety in order to feel comfortable to go about their daily affairs, which just so happens to includes spending money, so what's the loss of freedom among friends...or big brothers? By the way, this "necessary evil" for the care and grooming of a fascist or feudalistic society is never a requirement for either a democratic or socialistic State. So much for the notion we're becoming "socialist".

So, there you have it folks; "the plan" as I've termed it, and an explanation in a nutshell. An addendum to an agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the US to do away with borders, and an apparent reaction by Latin American leaders to Washington's delay in implementing their portion of the agreement due to their (perhaps chagrin) inability to sell it to the US People. Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, India, resisting this latest variation of the game of Risk by the WTO among others while holding a gun at our heads and one at their own. A spiraling problem in the Middle East as the result of failed plans to secure oil reserves by destabilizing resistant governments with the use manufactured "terrorists" who aren't following the playbook. You would think that after Watergate, they would have stopped using amateurs. But, on the upside, using terrorists as sort of the all purpose bogeyman behind every lamppost, an opportunity to expand government monitoring and police power under the auspices of "security" while corporate control of Washington not only increases, but emerges from the shadows. So my fellow Americans, what are you prepared to do? And then what are you prepared to do?

The Economy

The headline was frightful: Job losses in 2008 hit 2.6 million people. That’s nearly 7% of the population. As I walked back from by mailbox in the coldness of the morning, all I could think of was all those people facing an uncertain future in the middle of a brutally cold winter with utility, water, and gas companies raising rates. I wondered if there were be tax revolts. Even garbage companies were passing on the costs of doing business by making their customers pay for their gas. That’s not right. Who do I charge for my gas? My employer? I thought too of all those people who had been working part time through the holidays, who weren’t included in those numbers, but who are shortly to become part of the next quarter’s statistics. There’s just something about a human life being reduced to a mere “statistic” that seems so, well, dehumanizing. What are they going to do? I couldn’t help but reflect on the millions of jobs which were exported overseas, under the auspices of NAFTA, but always for the sake of the additional profit the company would make a the expense of someone’s livelihood and the millions of dollars some corporate executive enjoyed. And now that many have criminally mismanaged their companies, they have turned to Washington for “handouts” in the billions of dollars from the very same people who have been denied jobs, pensions, and healthcare---you and me. Napoleon once said that religion was the only thing which kept the poor from murdering the rich. Perhaps it is well that people turn to religion during times like these. Religion is indeed the “opiate of the masses”.

Words like “greed” and “audacity” really don’t quite express my disgust for these corporate execs, or for the members of Congress who gave them the money over the objections of the American People. And when asked what they were doing with money, they’ve told Congress it was none of their business. It seems that in the hurry to curry favor with their corporate masters, Congress neglected to include language which would require these “billionaire paupers” to disclose how the money was being spent. Now, we’re hearing that the retail, auto, and airline industries are wanting to be bailed out, and yet who is going to bail out the 2.6 million souls facing sudden poverty—and for many, through no or little fault of their own? Who watches over them? Which member of Congress is going to tell seniors to suck it up and put on another sweater because heating assistance is being cut? Which on of them will decide for seniors which prescription to fill and which meal to skip since many can no longer afford to both? Who among them is going to look in a child’s eyes and tell them there’s nothing to eat today or explain what a shelter is since mommy and daddy no longer have a house for them to live in?

I thought of those who still have jobs. They too are casualties of this economic disaster. How so? While they have jobs, many are faced with short term layoffs without pay; shorter hours; pay cuts; and the loss of healthcare (again, I’m reminded of the children). Then there is the added stress of simply not knowing. Will they have a job tomorrow? How about next week? And what about the added pressure of being required to do more work? Some, though not all, employers are taking advantage of the current economic conditions to load up on workers. I can envision turning on the evening news one day soon and watching a report of how someone simply “snapped” and killed their wife and family, or maybe their co-workers. There would of course be all those who would come forward and tell the camera of how “so and so” just wasn’t that kind of person or how they knew “something” was wrong. I wondered too how much more people could…would…take; when would we say “enough”? Or perhaps we did by electing Obama, but will that alone be enough?

So much is riding on Obama that he dare not fail. I didn’t vote for him for any other reason than his lack of experience. The presidency was never my idea for on-the-job training. But I am encouraged by his energy. The pressures facing him are almost unimaginable. Privately, I bet John McCain has thanked his Maker a thousand times over for not winning the election. I am encouraged by the American People, for whom I have tremendous respect. We are an amazingly resilient people. We seem to have collectively acknowledged that we’re in “deep do-do” and the only way out of this is by coming together, and we did this without Washington or the Media thank you very much. I hope too that this translates into more tolerance and compassion, especially for more vulnerable among us, namely our seniors, the handicapped, and most of all, the children.

I walked back into my house, thankful it was still “my” house…for now, and deposited the newspaper, which too has cut back on its content while not changing its price, on the kitchen table. The news I thought to myself was as numbing as the cold, but it was time for me to shuffle off to work. Still, I couldn’t help but wonder if today would be “my” day as it was for all those others who shuffled off to work for the final time. But then, perhaps not.

GOP: Future Denied?
Before reading any further, I suggest you check out the following article which recently appeared the Courier Journal:

Click here: courier-journal | Louisville Opinion | The Courier-Journal

The tiny Republican minority (approximately 10%) mentioned in this article, namely the moderates and liberals (which constitutes about 1% of the party) are systemically being purged the GOP. However, it was this very group which dominated national politics since the creation of the Grand Old Party. Its leaders have included Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H. Bush. Some would include Barry Goldwater, who, although was the “father of conservatism”, is considered a “moderate” by modern standards.

These leaders were responsible for some of the most progressive legislation of their generation, such as pro-labor laws, laying the foundation for the Civil Rights movement, creating national parks and protecting our wetlands, as well as creating agencies to protect workers and the environment. Yet, despite their rapidly declining numbers, many in the Republican Party are trying to blame them for the electoral recent losses. Based on numerous recent articles I’ve read from conservative and Republican websites, the move is on to move the GOP further to Right in more to create a more ideological “pure” party.

Specifically, their objective to bring together the remnants of the “Moral Majority”, the Christian Fundamentalists, Reagan Republicans, along with single issues groups such as the anti-gay and pro-life camps to create a neo-theocratic party while kicking out the so-called heretical moderates and liberals from the party. While they claim the moderates somehow “hijacked” the party, it is interesting to note that many of the party’s core, namely the libertarians, “freedom movement”, state’s rights, and Constitutionalists have long abandoned the GOP, or to put it more accurately, was pressured out of the GOP. In fact, most of the children from the illustrious gentlemen above have left the party; if not in name, at least in their support.

Life seems to move in cycles, whether it’s our physical lives or the economy. Politics is no different. Historically, we seem to swing or shift from the Left to the Right and back again roughly every 30 years. Many, if not most sociologists and political scientists are now saying we are shifting from the Right which reached its high water mark under Reagan and now we're beginning swing to the Left. Instead of embracing and encouraging a return to the fold, the GOP leadership is trying to circle it wagons, but not from the Democrats. Rather, from its core that brought it so much success over the years. Given the current swing by the voting public away from the conservative agendas of the likes of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or Anne Coulter, this may prove to be the undoing of the Republican Party as a major national player. In fact, I would even suggest that by the time we begin to shift back to the Right, there may well be a third party capable of the absorbing the center right, which at this point has to either gravitate to the Democratic Party; join one of the many growing third parties; or become a member of the rapidly increasing Independent movement.

Maybe this is as it should be. After all, the Republican Party came together essentially as third party from the remnants of the Whigs and several other smaller parties and interests groups such as the “Know-Nothing” movement, Free-Soil Party, and the abolitionists. Perhaps then its future should follow the same course of breakup and realignment into something which reflects the current needs of the American People.

The Radical Center

I would like to take a moment to thank Mark Satin, editor of the Radical Center (http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_vision2009.htm) for a great run. Mark is great author and spokesperson for those of us who are “independently” minded. Mark also named Another Opinion as one of the top 25 radcial center blogs in America. After several years, Mark is hanging it up. Mark’s insights will be greatly missed.

Book Review

Of all the dangers facing us as a nation, be it the indiscriminate murderers of radical Islam, the economic meltdown, global warming, famine, global pandemics, perhaps none are such an immediate threat to us as Hugo Chavez, the president and dictator of Venezuela. Chavez has the ways and means through the national oil company, CITCO, to inflict damage on the American economy in ways Bin Laden. Kim and Ahmadinejad can only dream about. He has challenged US interests at every step, including supporting drug cartels, narcoterrorists, and acting as a conduit for our enemies, including providing a “training base” for the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah in Venezuela. At the same time, Chavez has worked hard, using his deep pockets of petrodollars to “buy friends and influence nations” while striving to assume the mantle of his childhood hero, Fidel Castro.

Nowhere better is the story of Hugo Chavez lay bare than in “The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America” by Douglas E. Schoen and Michael Bowen. The authors, both highly versed in international intrigue, have written a finely detailed description of Chavez’s childhood and rise to power through corruption, intimidation, and blind luck and know better than anyone what his intentions toward the West are. Like another dictator, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez has never hidden his hatred for democracy, be it in the West or the US in particular. With his deep seated ambition to dominate the Western Hemisphere, Chavez uses CITCO as his weapon of choice rather than bombs. The chief difference between Chavez and his predecessors, as the authors point out, are vast oil reserves at his disposal and our near total dependence of foreign oil. If Hitler, Stalin, or Castro had a “CITCO” at their disposal, the world would be a very different place today.

If you want to know more about this powerful, but rarely reported on enemy of democracy, or if you simply have an interest in geopolitics, I urge to read “The Threat Closer to Home” by Douglas E. Schoen and Michael Bowen. It will be eye opening.

Poll Results

The last time I asked you two questions. The first was who you thought was responsible for the economic crisis. The second was did the economic crisis occur. In response to the first question, 41% of you said that Bush, Congress, Wall Street and both political parties were responsible. 25% of you thought it was mainly Bush and Republicans while 25% thought it was the Democrats. Isn’t that interesting? The rest of you thought the culprit was either Congress or none of the above.

In response to the second question, 42% of you thought the reason for the economic crisis was a lack of government oversight while 30% thought it was old fashion corporate greed. 25% of you thought it was either the failure of Capitalism or all of the above. The rest of you thought the answer lie somewhere else.

Personally, I think the answer to the first question, as to who was responsible, was “all of the above”. I think it was a combination of government and Wall Street. As for the second question, again I think this was to wide spread to be the failure of just one individual or group. Clearly this was another “all of the above”. Thanks for participating!

Illegal Immigration Mexican Style

I think everyone knows my position on illegal immigration. In case you don’t, let me enlighten you. Illegal immigrants should be removed immediately from the US, but before they're deported, immigration officials should do an oral DNA swipe. Illegals should be notified in Spanish, both verbally and in writing, that their DNA will be stored in the government’s national database. If they’re caught a second time, they will go to jail, and then deported. Employers will be heavily fined the first time; fined and jailed the second time. No exceptions. Illegal aliens should not be entitled to any taxpayer based service, even if they’re “paying” into the system using a false or stolen SSN. If they want come here, that’s great; just do it on a green card. On a related topic, we speak English here. Learn it. Use it. Or leave.

Mexico’s former President, Vincente Fox, has repeatedly said the United States had “no right” to secure its border. America was acting “medieval” and “inhumanely” by proposing a fence along the border, while at the same time encouraging Mexicans to sneak into the country. Some Hispanic groups have openly proposed a program of “reconquista” or reconquest to create a so called “Republic of North” comprising of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, and Colorado through various political groups like “La Raza” and the Aztlan Movement. With over 80% of Americans demanding a secured southern border, the federal government continues to do nothing. Why? Under NAFTA, Mexican drivers will be allowed unimpeded access to US highways in vehicles of questionable safety. Why? Is this why some politicians want to issue illegals a driver’s license? Sure would make access to and from Mexico easy. Very little federal effort or money has in fact been put into place to secure our border with Mexico. The burden has fallen largely on poorly equipped, staffed, and funded local police officers along key border areas. Even our US border patrol and few military personnel stationed along key crossing sites aren’t allowed to engage illegals. They can only “observe, withdraw, and report”. Again, why?

A friend of mine recently sent me the article below, which was written by Dr. J. Michael Waller, a professor at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC. Dr. Waller directs graduate students in political warfare and political diplomacy. He is also Vice President of Information Operations at the Center of Security Policy, a US policy advisor, and an author. Dr. Waller wrote this article in May of 2006. In it, he describes how Mexico deals with its illegal immigration issue. I hope you find the article as enlightening as I did. So let's see how President Fox’s liberal suggestions play out when they apply it toward their illegal immigrant problem.

Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home Monday, May 08, 2006
By J. Michael Waller

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;
• have the means to sustain themselves economically;
• not destined to be burdens on society;
• of economic and social benefit to society;
• of good character and have no criminal records; and
• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

• Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
• Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
• Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
• The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
• A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
• A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
• Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
• Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
• Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
• "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
• Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
• Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
• A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics, and is Vice President for Information Operations at the Center for Security Policy. He wrote this paper for the Center for Security Policy.
An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/1917_Constitution_of_Mexico.html. Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation.


A Metro Louisville Department of Energy

It seems that oil and gas prices are always on our minds these days, especially with winter approaching, and Moderate Man is no exception. Take a look at what he has to say:

Why doesn’t Louisville Metro Government have a Department of Energy? It also needs a Green Building Ordinance. Lots of cities in America have these things. We don’t. Weather they call it Sustainable Design in Boston Massachusetts or a Green Building Ordinance in Frisco, TX., they all accomplish the same goals, to save energy. Our leaders need to be proactive. This is why our town is always behind the times. Government should be leading by example and showing the way to people. Yes, there are local scattered efforts to conserve energy from hybrid TARC buses, state building regulations, introduction of green roofs, etc. But new houses over 3500 square foot, should be energy self sustaining, like in Marin County, California. Louisville has been long known for its moderate housing costs. This has attracted residents and employers which help the local economy. Large houses need to be creatively built, by using the latest technology such as solar panels, passive solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc. By conserving energy costs they will not only save money themselves, but aide the local economy and keep energy costs down. Louisville Metro Government needs to replace their ageing police fleet with hybrid fuel vehicles and other departments with electric vehicles. They could phase them in over a period of years till there is total replacement. Methane gas from Louisville’s landfill could be reclaimed for winter heating gas and sold, instead of burned off. A few years ago Mayor Abramson made a failed push to convert the Meriwether Waste Reduction Station into garbage to steam power plant. Why did the mayor drop the ball and has not revisited his idea? The biggest asset Louisville has is the Ohio River. It needs to be exploited for energy needs. Louisville Metro officials could promote tax credits to have a firm build a small scale hydroelectric plant or an underwater turbine. Who knows, Metro Louisville could take a financial position like they do with local hotels or the arena, and maybe even compete with LG&E for energy costs. The Louisville Government could lead the way to have more biofuel service stations around the greater Louisville region. TARC buses should all be electric in the future. Perhaps one day a nuclear power plant like the many the French government has, will be built near here after their end use radioactive byproduct is recycled. This will eliminate the polluting coal power plants our state has and is known for.

Moderate Man

Seat Belts on School Buses

Some of you may remember a blog I wrote back on March 17, 2007 entitled “School Bus Safety” where I suggested adding seat belts on school buses. Evidently some folks were paying attention. US Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters is exploring the idea. You can read more at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21883749/