Tuesday, September 18, 2012


Although truth is complicated, it is the essence of our legal system.  You raise your hand and take an oath to tell the truth. 

It takes absolutely no courage on the part of politicians to be pro-abortion.  There are millions of votes involved.  The same is true for a long list of other specialized interest groups.  Certain religious groups vote almost exclusively left or right.  Certain racial groups vote almost exclusively left or right.  The same is true of unions, gun owners and a whole long list of interest groups.  This interest group voting is the way it works in the real world and is very hard to overcome.

Without going into Candidate Romney's motives, it seems to take a certain moral conviction to stand up for what you believe in, rather than what will help you get elected.  The fact is that he spoke the truth when he indicated that a large percentage of the tax payer population do not pay federal income taxes. 

That happens to be true. The question then becomes is this a situation that will, in time, work towards the detriment or the improvement in this close to 50% of the population's standard of life?

In any case, Romney was probably right, a significant portion of those people vote democratic under all conditions.  Such was the stance of my Mother, who I loved dearly...Democrat - 100% of the time.

Sunday, September 16, 2012


This is the real story on the Middle East.  The riots from the Middle East are nothing more than a staged operetta. 

They have only one purpose.  The purpose is to take our eye off Iran and their march towards nuclear arms. 

The riots are meant to scare so that no one will dare deal with Iran, since the Middle East and other places will erupt into chaos. 

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

A RESPONSE TO A THINKER...(Originally Published May 2011)

Thank you for the extremely insightful comments on my recent blog pertaining to oil. Please bear with me as I attempt to frame my answer within the historical context of our nation's history. Bizarre as this may seem, I believe that it is within this story the answer to your questions lie.

After the Revolutionary War a disparate group of states with a very minimal and primitive central government existed. At the constitutional convention there were two primary government theories, that of the Federalists who wanted a strong central government and that of the Anti-Federalists who wanted most powers to lie in the states.

The Anti-Federalists, which enjoyed the oratory excellence of Patrick Henry and George Mason, believed in small changes and that "tweaking" the articles of confederation was all that was needed. It was pretty clear that the general populous of the time, about three million strong, as a majority, felt the same way.

Madison, Hamilton and Washington, a formidable group if there ever was one, believed in a very centralized sovereign government. Anti-Federalist argued that the sovereign central government sounded liked a re-creation of living under the aegis of King George the Third and the British Parliament.

In essence, Madisonian Hamiltonian position was that the articles had to be completely redone. The upcoming constitution could not create a strong nation with just a little fixing here and there of the articles. For whatever reasons, that 1870's period of time had attracted a set of delegates, probably never since duplicated in intellectual content.

When all was said and done, a convoluted constitutional government of Congressional, Senatorial, Judicial, Executive, Electoral and state's rights was embedded in our constitution. It seemed anything but kingly, and in fact was a vast sharing of overlapping powers.

Many, including Madison, came to believe that the great strength of our Republic was set in place by the seeming dilution of powers among many.

I tell you the story for two reasons, one; our response to the oil situation requires the same type of "do over" as our response to the articles of confederation, namely the courage for a new plan . Two; the answers will lie in a series of responses, rather than in one overall response.

A little more necessary review of history is needed before drawing conclusions. Since the birth of the nation, there has been almost two hundred fifty years of all kinds of things occurring. It's everything from the Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution, Agricultural Revolution to dealing with foreign powers and everything else. We have progressed, we have had ups and downs, we have brought more to the world than probably any country before us in the shortest possible period of time. For example, we dealt with WWII, in spite of a questionable response to our use of atomic bomb and a questionable response to the Holocaust problem. But even the Founders did not deal with all the issues. It put some aside such as slavery, women's rights, and Indians for another day but it dealt with things. It faced big recalcitrant issues and moved forward.

Along the way this nation has been built by oil. We are a large place, three thousand miles wide and we developed processes that involve the integration and use of this large space by the many. Cars and trucks use most of the oil.

Furthermore, deep in the bowels of the State Department, the CIA and our security apparatus lies a vast network of people and machines dedicated to a world view and hopefully peace.

Besides the potentially millions of people employed in this country at oil related jobs and infrastructure, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims, who one way or another, rely on their future well being from a steady stream of oil income. The shutting down or diminishment of the oil recovery domestically, or the oil power base around the world, would be potentially too catastrophic to face up to.

So what to do......
1. We have to let it be known that we consider the overall oil dilemma, not just the price, to be a crisis at least equal to any other crisis this country has faced.
2. We have to let it be known that all arguments and discussions to alleviate this problem on a permanent basis will be undertaken under all levels of government and society until a constitutional blueprint for the oil crisis has been submitted and accepted.
3. We have to let it be known that all points of view should be put forward during the development of the energy constitution, argued and decided upon and accepted by a majority of the people.
4. We have to let it be known that we will be willing to speak with anyone but will not allow ourselves to live under the constant threat of oil embargoes and constant price threats.
5. We have to let it be known that all hedge funds and speculators should be excluded from this market and no professorial economic or private property arguments will override the need from energy related threats.
6. We have to let it be known that oil producing countries shall not be able to provide gasoline in their nations at close to zero cost while selling oil at many multiples of actual production cost.
7. We have to let it be known that if this is to continue we will begin to demand exorbitant prices for necessary items from oil producing countries and at the same time selling those items in the normal domestic market at normal domestic prices.
8. We have to let it be known that every car in this country will be replaced by at least a one hundred mile per gallon car within at least a five year period whatever the resulting problems bring.
9. We have to let it be known that since cars and trucks are the primary users of oil that all this talk about alternative sources continues to be a deception from current scientific reality. Under existing circumstances oil producing countries will always reduce the price of oil below the cost of developing alternative energy sources whenever they reach a point of real competition.
10. We have to let it be known that we have the back bone to face the dislocations that these steps will cause because not facing them is not an alternative.
11. We have to let it be known that we do whatever it takes to stand up to special interest groups because the national problem requires solving this problem once and for all.
12. We have to let it be known any arguments about the undemocratic nature of the pursuit to solve our energy problems have to be put aside.

Monday, September 10, 2012


This will almost sound like a fairy tale.  The good fairies, the group of democrats who recently proposed that profits should be eliminated from corporations, stand with their magic wands waving to a drum beat.

For those inclined to left-wing wand waving here are some simple facts...you take them to whatever drum beating march you choose.

In the fairy tale land of no profit this is what would happen:

1. There would not be any corporate profit left to buy plant and equipment.
2. The millions of workers that work in those industries wouldn't have any jobs.
3. The fairy tale land wouldn't have any money left over to pay dividends to your mutual funds, your IRAs or investments in IBM or anything else.
4. The few dollars that are left from these "wicked" profits couldn't be retained in the companies to pay off debts and provide a financially strong environment to maintain employment.

The good fairies of profit elimination must want to live in another world called Obama, Saul Alinsky, Communism and Failure.  Who are these good fairies?


Shepard Osherow. All Rights Reserved