Search

E-mail Editorials 2008

 

10-21- 08
PREDICTIONS:

The following are my predictions - not my wishes - of events and the impact these measures will have over the next four years.

1) Obama Wins.

2) World Depression deepens. As employment stumbles and employers cut more benefits the 2008 Christmas season will be the worst in decades. People will refrain from purchasing gifts realizing their friends and family really don't need all that "stuff." Due to the dollar's continued reduction and prices of public and private corporations below value, cash rich countries (see #4 below) will increase their ownership of our production companies and our real estate.

3) With many people out of work new "entitlements" for the basics of food, health care and shelter will be enforced - we complete our slide into socialism. Though most taxpayers will initially see a decline in "income" taxes, all will experience a net loss of income due to other taxes, fees and charges to pay the cost of these "entitlements." Infrastructure will become a crisis.

4) OPEC keeps oil prices artificially low to discourage development of alternative energy sources and exploration drilling. Even at deflated prices these countries will continue to increase their wealth/cash position, but will reduce terrorist donations (see #7). America, however, will remain dependent upon foreign oil because the Democrats will persist in their refusal to drill off-shore and in Alaska. In addition, the Obama administration will also ignore the need to build nuclear power plants. Working, pragmatic and large scale de facto alternative energy sources/vehicles will remain a pipe dream.

5) USA (on the pretext of human rights, domestic employment issues and/or military excuses) restricts, imports from China - breaking the trade agreement. The impact will cause: a) Back door negotiations between the Government and American trade unions that forces the unions to accept major concessions; b) Employment slowly gains; c) China, having had a taste of western life and now seeing it slip away, will increase its imperialists goals and aspirations; d) A new cold war develops as China threatens the use of "suitcase" nuclear bombs.

6) Homeland Security will be beefed up to create jobs, close the borders and search incoming containers. Illegal aliens will be aggressively pursued and all persons will be required to carry federal ID. American police officers, our first line of defense, will be put to the test as they straddle the line between controlling escalating criminal actions while keeping within increasing Obama administration controls placed on them.

7) Troops will remain in Iraq. However, Islamic fundamentalist (Iran), loosing ground and funds from OPEC and because they do not fear the Obama administration, will launch a nuclear attack in Iraq. It will kill a huge portion of Iraqis and a significant number of Americans, but the spin put on it by both Iran and the USA will never confirm the exact numbers killed on either side. Obama will not retaliate in kind seeking to withdraw and force the USA further into isolationism - encouraging assaults on Americans and American property everywhere else.

8) President Obama will appoint two Supreme Court Justices bent on perpetuating the myth that it is a "living breathing document" subject to the whims of the times and foreign country's doctrines.

9) Persons sympathetic to the Islamic cause will surreptitiously infiltrate multiple levels of government. This will not be reported by the main-stream media.

10) Cancel most of the above if McCain is elected.

Please God, help me to keep faith, health, ethical standards and a reliable firearm.

Chuck Klein

***************************************************************

Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:22 PM
Subject: 1940-2008 Election

History teaches, but only if one can extrapolate.

During the 1940 election era it was the Republicans who were isolationist, not wanting the USA to send troops to foreign countries. To get elected to a third term, FDR (a Democrat and interventionist) had to promise not to engage in the war raging in Europe unless we were attacked. At the same time, he was working behind closed doors to send war materials to England. After he was elected, FDR had to qualify his definition of "attacked" to include keeping the Atlantic shipping lanes open to all ships, a challenge/dare to Nazi Germany to attack one of our - or our allies' - munitions laden ships.

Today, it's the Democrats who are championing isolationism by their demands to "bring the troops home" while the Republicans wish to stay the course. One can't doubt what would have happened if the USA had not bailed out England and Russia and had not forced the Japanese to attack us by placing embargoes on oil to their island nation (closing their shipping lanes).

GW said, "We can fight them over here or we can fight them over there." If we elect isolationists, Obama*or Clinton,** in 2008 and they make good on their promises to capitulate in Iraq and bring the troops home, we'll most assuredly be fighting a war over here.

* “When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran...I will end the war in Iraq..." http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

** "Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now." http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

Chuck Klein

**********************************************************

In an exclusive interview with JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency www.jta.org), Senator Obama reveals his anti-Israel positions.

09 April 2008

(Excerpt w/comments)

"Daniel Kurtzer (Obama team adviser), the former ambassador to Israel who co-wrote a book on negotiating Arab-Israeli peace, says Israel has not paid a price for failing to dismantle unauthorized outpost settlements . . ." (So what kind of advice can he give?)

"It's going to be important for Israel to acknowledge that it's going to have to make some territorial modifications to ensure that there is a stable and contiguous Palestinian state. . . ." Obama said." (What does he call the dismantling of Gaza?)

"The role of the United States 'requires listening to both sides and talking to both sides, ' Obama said. 'Because there's no way we can move forward in those negotiations without at least understanding their perspective."' (We've been listening to the Palestinian push-'em-to-the-sea perspective for over half a century)

So, what else is new?

Chuck Klein

**************************************************************

7-1-08
Positions, as to "gun control," of the FOP, McCAIN, OBAMA, LawOfficer.com

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE PRESIDENTIAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Because of the increased politicization of firearms issues and the lack of any meaningful public safety component in many legislative proposals, the membership of the FOP adopted a resolution stating that it would not support additional “gun control” legislation beyond our support for the measures signed into law in 1994. Will your Administration seek to push any additional “gun control” measures? If so, what public safety benefit do you expect to achieve and why should the FOP overturn its resolution on this issue?

BARACK OBAMA RESPONSE, read more

I greatly respect the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. But I also believe that we can respect the Second Amendment and stem gun violence in our communities. It is especially important to stop the trafficking of illegal guns, and my legislative priorities will focus on the common-sense steps we can take to do just that. First, we know that when law enforcement agencies operate in concert at the federal, state, and local levels, the chances of solving a crime increases. But since 2003, the Tiahrt Amendment has restricted the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to share gun trace information with members of state and local law enforcement. The ATF has a wide-ranging database of gun information, yet Washington has threatened police officers with time in prison for attempting to access it. If we repeal this Amendment, it will give police officers the tools they need to fight the illegal gun trade and reduce crime.

Second, I support requiring background checks and closing the gun-show loophole that has been exploited by everyone from foreign terrorists to the Columbine High School shooters. Closing it would not impair the rights of lawful gun owners.

Finally, I believe we should reinstate and make permanent the expired federal assault weapons ban. We’ve witnessed the need for the ban in my hometown of Chicago, where Mayor Daley and the Chicago Police Department are backing a plan to equip officers with semi-automatic assault rifles in part because our officers have been outgunned by criminals equipped with AK-47s and similar weapons.

Because of the increased politicization of firearms issues and the lack of any meaningful public safety component in many legislative proposals, the membership of the FOP adopted a resolution stating that it would not support additional “gun control” legislation beyond our support for the measures signed into law in 1994. Will your Administration seek to push any additional “gun control” measures? If so, what public safety benefit do you expect to achieve and why should the FOP overturn its resolution on this issue?

JOHN McCAIN RESPONSE, read more

I believe the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that must be protected. We have seen the record of gun control, and it is a record of crime fighting failure. Assuming that criminals will abide by gun restrictions is dangerously naïve. Gun bans, waiting periods, ammunition bans, registration and licensing of gun owners – each of these has a common theme: they only affect law-abiding citizens. And they have another common theme: they don’t work as crime fighting tools. The way to reduce crime is to prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of existing laws – which, if elected President, gun owners can count on my Administration to do.

LawOfficer.com
http://www.lawofficer.com/

(Excerpt)
They [politicians] also aren't too worried about the crime problem. Members of Congress can purchase a vehicle for use in and around D.C. at public expense, and most of them also have a staff member who is their driver. Most of the drivers are retired cops with carry privileges, so they essentially have their own armed bodyguards. At work, they have the U.S. Capitol Police, a force of about 1600 officers to protect 535 members of Congress and their staffs. How would you like to have an officer-to-citizen ratio like that in your city?

The United States Supreme Court also has their own police department, as does most every federal outfit in D.C. There is even an FBI Police Department, the only situation I know of where a law enforcement agency has its own separate law enforcement agency.

Tim Dees (Tim Dees is a retired police officer and the editor-in-chief of LawOfficer.com)

The FOP's position/resolution is a 180° turn from their historical anti-gun mantra. Perhaps, in addition to realizing the lack of "meaningful public safety component in many legislative proposals" they just might be beginning to acknowledge their wives, daughters, sons, just like the rest of us, may need a firearm to protect themselves, too.

Chuck Klein

*****************************************************************

7-5-08
Dear Fellow Jews,

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision acknowledging firearm ownership is an American fundamental right, a paradox has arisen. "A number of major Jewish organizations have condemned the decision, which they believe will simply make America a more violent place. They include the American Jewish Committee, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the American Jewish Congress and the National Council of Jewish Women."

The AJ Committee also expressed 'disappointment' over the decision, adding: 'Gun control protects liberty, rather than restricts it."'

On the other side, attorney Alan Gura, lead attorney for the winning side in the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller said, "Statistics indicate that gun ownership tends to reduce crime and increase public safety. Moreover, self-protection is a fundamental right, he added, because citizens cannot always depend on the government to protect them from criminals or tyrannical rulers. He said Jews, in particular, should take note. It's puzzling. Many Jews seem to prefer heavy government intervention, and it's not a good thing." Jews, he said, often have the mistaken belief "'that the government is a beneficent force to always do good and help people out.'" Washington Jewish Week, 3 July 08, click here to read more.

The 5000 dues-paying members of the civil rights organization, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), in its Amicus Curiae on the subject raises the obvious questions of how can Jews who share the Holocaust commonality be so at odds over the issue of the rights and powers of self and race preservation? Here are a few comments from this very well written and poignant legal brief:

" the simple truth — born of
experience — is that tyranny thrives
best where government need not fear
the wrath of an armed people.'

"If a few hundred Jewish fighters in
the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the
Wehrmacht for almost a month with
only a handful of weapons, six million
Jews armed with rifles could not so
easily have been herded into cattle
cars."

Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 569 (9t~~ Cir. 2003) (Kozinski, J., dissenting).

"This simple observation by Judge Kozinski encapsulates the core issue that forms the basis and the essential nature of the Second Amendment."

[Beginning in 1928, a series of Pogroms were issued controlling, restricting, and finally, barring Jews from firearms ownership] "A 1936 memorandum of the Bavarian Political Police documents the procedure:

"'In principle, there will be very few
occasions where concerns will not be
raised regarding the issuance of
weapons permits to Jews. As a rule,
we have to assume that firearms in
the hands of the Jews represent a
considerable danger to the German
people."'

 

 "History illustrates just how readily reasonable regulation of firearms invites large scale abuse by the state and ultimately paves the way for wholesale confiscation of arms and the mass slaughter of the disarmed. (Footnote: ‘ Invariably the proponents of “reasonable” firearms regulations . . . invites the type of abuse which has been rampant worldwide within the last century. One need not strain too hard to imagine the type of broad censorship that could be implemented under the guise of “reasonable” regulation of speech or of the press.')"
http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/jpfo-amicus-brief.pdf

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled! Those who disagreed must, in the American way, accept the decision and plan accordingly, i.e., each family, synagogue, law-abiding citizen (not otherwise prohibited from owning weapons) must, as they do in Israel, train with, own and teach the necessity of firearms to your children.

Chuck Klein

***************************************************************

8-07-08
The current "oil crisis" reminds me of my favorite Ann Landers advice column: The writer was lamenting the fact that she was 33 years old and if she began school now to attain her life's wish of being an attorney, it would take seven years and she'd be at least 40 before she could take the bar. Ann Landers' reply: "And how old will you be in seven years if you don't enroll in school?"

The Democrats have taken the position that because demand for oil exceeds supply, today, drilling for oil in Alaska or off-shore wouldn't be a wise investment because it would take at least ten years for that oil to reach the pumps.

Chuck Klein

******************************************************************

8-30-08
If they were playing Bridge, the Republican pick of Palin as VP has trumped the Democrats. If it were checkers, McCain would be saying, "King me," if Chess, "Checkmate."

But we're not playing games and in this real and scary world where strength, ability and experience are required, the Republicans have shown true leadership by going with the 1st string first and placing the 2nd team in reserve. The Democrats, however, have done the exact opposite by utilizing their 1st team in the VP position and their inexperienced 2nd stringer out front.

Chuck Klein

*************************************************************

8-26-08
Seems Obama has selected a boring white-bread for his running mate.

If McCain gives the nod to Liberman, he loses. Should he choose a white-right-male-Christian, it'll be a toss up. However, if he picks either a woman or a Hispanic man as his #2, he'll hold the advantage. And . . . if that woman or Hispanic is a strong conservative Christian, McCain wins.

Chuck Klein

****************************************************************

8-28-08
As we Americans approach another Presidential election, let us not over-emphasize or have delusions of successes never deemed possible by the Executive Branch of our country. Our President, contrary to the hopes and dreams of many, is not empowered to do most of the "campaign promises" that he or his party claim - those powers are reserved to the Congress. And, therein lies the problem.

Our Congress, for at least the past 60 years, has flaunted high-handed and unmitigated contempt for the American people and the very ideals the framers of our Constitution envisioned. With under-the-table deals, retirement/medical perks, unconstitutional laws, junkets, pork barrel and earmark spending, these Senators and Congresspersons have placed us - an icon among nations - at great peril. Being a typical Republican, and after voicing my complaints, I will tender my suggestions to correct these problems.

Three possible solutions:

a) The feel-good, American-way remedy: For the short term the President must have the power of a line-item veto. For the long term a new amendment to restrict federal spending. Vote for the personality of your choice, our most visible symbol, but elect only members of Congress who will support ending their own de facto good-ol'-boys/girls-club. DOWNSIDE: Not only will this solution not solve any of our other problems (pollution, oil, unrestrained spending, etc.) but government employees (or those receiving government jobs/contracts) are the largest voting block of all and they ain't gonna vote for anyone who's gonna cut their job.

b) Revolution: As Thomas Jefferson said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" (11-13-1787 letter to William Smith). DOWNSIDE: While we're slugging it out among ourselves, China (et al) will be ramping up their plans and intentions to take us - and the world - over. Besides, the military has the firepower to quell any uprising, unless . . . .

c) Imperialism: By adhering to the industrial/metropolitan dogma of expand or wither, we will be able to negate many of our failures and short-comings. DOWNSIDE: Preemptive strikes (nuclear and/or otherwise) against China - our biggest threat - could cause unintended consequences, i.e., we might lose.

Chuck Klein

*******************************************************************

8-20-08
In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a "change." So, when a young leader came along most Cubans yelled "Viva Fidel," to his slogan: "I will bring you change."

But nobody asked what the "change" entailed. The "change" yielded a country where everyone was equal: Equally poor. Equally hungry. Equally oppressed. Equally without the independence, power and freedom they and their country had become accustomed to.

Of course, we Americans are not so gullible as to support a candidate championing "change" without demanding to know exactly what the "change" is. We know, for instance, the "change" Obama proposes: More taxes to make everyone equally poor, hungry and oppressed and a bring-our-troops-home menatlity that will expose us to terrorist activity "over here."

Chuck Klein

***************************************************************

8-13-08
". . . when this nation goes to fight, it has within its ranks people of uncommon valor, people who rise heroically to the challenge of defending this nation. . . ." (Max Cleland, 2004, Introduction to: Voices of War)

Based on John McCain's record of heroics, bravery and uncommon valor, if our enemies - wait change that - when our enemies threaten our way of life, as they are doing so now, John McCain has once again risen to the challenge of defending this nation.

When one thinks of Barak Obama, the Peter Principle comes to mind: "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." (Dr. Laurence J. Peter, Esquire, January 1967)

Chuck Klein

*****************************************************************

7-11-08
AMERICA – AS WE KNOW IT – IS FACING FIVE SIGNIFICANT THREATS:

PREFACE: I realize many of you receiving my essays/editorials sometimes strongly disagree with my positions. I site the old and still true observation of Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Well, I'm a writer and believe I am a good man and this is what I'm doing. What are you doing?

1) OVER- POPULATION. We (all occupants of earth) cannot continue to pollute the air, land and sea while depleting the oceans of wildlife. Possible solutions: Stop feeding the world. Ban the taking of wild fish for commercial purposes. Problem: Difficult to enforce restrictions on foreign nations, sans war (which must remain an option).

2) SOCIALISM. We are on a slope from a capitalistic republic toward a socialistic democracy and the only change we can make is to slow it down, i.e., elect Republicans and it slows, elect Democrats and it escalates. Possible Solution: Changes to the Constitution to reduce non-essential government funded programs/studies. Problem: Government employees make up the largest bloc of voters and will resist any means of reducing their number.

3) MUSLIMS. We won the two previous world wars because PC had not been coined. We fought Germany and Germans; Japan and Japs. We bombed civilian targets and we interned Japanese in this country. I reiterate: We Won! Today, the Muslim world has learned how to use our PC against us. They have created two camps, one the – prima facie, peace loving American citizens (who refuse to go against their extremist brothers) - and a second, the warrior, who openly declares and carries out war against us. When push comes to shove, the "peace loving" contingent will side with the warriors and attack us from within. Possible Solution: Register all Muslims in the U.S. and expel all Muslims not born here (if we don’t do it, China will - see #5 below). Continue to keep the Islamic warriors busy fighting our trained troops in Iraq. Problem: The same whiners, socialist and hand-wringers who want to apologize for bombing civilian targets and interning Japanese during WW2 will fight this profiling continuing to make us vulnerable and weak in the eyes/means of our enemy.

4) CRIMINALS. Our prisons are far too comfortable. We have created multitudes of institutionalized persons who consciously or subconsciously want to be in prison. Not only is this hard on the decent law-abiding victims, but it is a huge drain on the economy. Possible Solution: Draft a new amendment to the Constitution redefining "cruel and unusual" to exclude forced labor and facilities without TV/AC/major health care. Problem: See #3.

5) CHINA. Because of it's recent and aggressive entry into the world of material goods, its massive population and escalating thirst for oil they will control the world within 20 years. Their power will come first, financial; second, "suit case" nuclear bombs. Thanks to our liberal "free-trade" society, China is using slave labor to exchange material goods for our money (one reason our dollar is at an all time low and still sinking). With this massive supply of U.S. funds they will (continue to) purchase American land, corporations and politicians. Once they become powerful enough to dictate policies, they will hide internal nuclear bombs - in large population centers - that can be triggered remotely. And, if the Muslim/Arab countries so much as flex a muscle, the Chinese will nuke 'em - thanks to the West's ability to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands. Once they dominate us, the rest of the world and all its resources, will be a cake walk. Possible Solution: No imports other than raw materials. A preemptive military strike. Problem: See #3.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking, Klein must be a Democrat 'cuz he's just whining and hand-wringing. Ah . . . but the difference is, I have tendered starting points for dialogue by bringing these "possible solutions" out in the open and on the table.

Chuck Klein

**************************************************************

6-27-08
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that individual citizens, not otherwise prohibited from owning guns, have the Constitutional right to keep firearms in their home, sans trigger locks or other means of rendering the gun impractical, for self defense.

The significance of this ruling forces the question: If the Democratic Party, whose official platform "only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms," has been so wrong for so long - what else are they so wrong about? It seems these same save-us-from-ourselves whiners were the ones proclaiming the streets will run red in blood if ordinary law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed guns. Well, the streets are still dry and it took the Supreme Court to explain what most of us learned in grade school. If these head-in-the-sand, common-sense-challenged liberals have been so blind to matters of personal security, they must be just as wrong to demand we forsake national security by "bringing our troops home".

As confirmed by The Supreme Court of the United States, "KLEIN'S LAW OF LAWS: We are NOT a nation of laws - we are a nation of constitutions. Laws, statutes, court decrees, presidential edicts are subservient to constitutions."

Chuck Klein

*****************************************************************

6-27-08
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that individual citizens, not otherwise prohibited from owning guns, have the Constitutional right to keep firearms in their home, sans trigger locks or other means of rendering the gun impractical, for self defense.

The significance of this ruling forces the question: If the Democratic Party, whose official platform "only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms," has been so wrong for so long - what else are they so wrong about? It seems these same save-us-from-ourselves whiners were the ones proclaiming the streets will run red in blood if ordinary law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed guns. Well, the streets are still dry and it took the Supreme Court to explain what most of us learned in grade school. If these head-in-the-sand, common-sense-challenged liberals have been so blind to matters of personal security, they must be just as wrong to demand we forsake national security by "bringing our troops home".

As confirmed by The Supreme Court of the United States, "KLEIN'S LAW OF LAWS: We are NOT a nation of laws - we are a nation of constitutions. Laws, statutes, court decrees, presidential edicts are subservient to constitutions."

Chuck Klein

************************************************************

4-8-08
A personal review of: THE JEWISH AMERICANS
(A series by David Grubin, Copyright 2008, PBS Home Video)

If you consider anything you read/watch is educational, then you might get something out of the subject DVD. I found it to be less than beneficial and had some significant problems with certain passages. For a six hour documentary that is supposed to be about Jewish Americans, a disproportionate amount of footage was devoted to blacks – not Jewish-American blacks, but just American blacks (I’ve experienced this overtly political correctness in other PBS productions).

Other issues include:
1) The producers go into great detail about the life of Marcus Spiegel (who died a Union soldier) just because he became a abolitionist while almost nothing about his brother who founded the Spiegel mail order/catalog business.

2) While giving all this time to the non-famous Spiegel , the production fails to even mention U.S. Grant’s infamous Order #11 which barred “Jews and other peddlers” from certain states and locations because they were trading with the enemy. Thus they failed to note the heroic efforts of Isaac M. Wise and others who traveled to D.C. to call on Lincoln. The President then sent word to Grant to rescind the order. (What Grant failed to understand, was that it was necessary for the North to trade its manufactured goods to the South – for its cotton. “Jews and other peddlers” were in the business of trading and thus were the natural agents of both the North and the South and a necessity to the war effort). One can only wonder, if PBS could ignore such a consequential event, what other Jewish history are they forsaking?

3) There is significant time devoted to Henry Ford (an anti-Semite), but much less footage on the American Jew who adjusted his attitude.

4) More disturbing is what’s not included: Contributions/contributors of/by American Jewish lawyers, doctors and tycoons who were a major part of the industrial revolution and the winning of two world wars.

5) The civil rights movement was portrayed as more about the plight of the blacks than of the Jews who fought for their fellow American’s rights. One disturbing distinction was reveled where the producers claim the black power advocates (c.1970) asked the whites (not knowing that many of the whites were Jewish – as if that made a difference) to discontinue with their endeavors. That’s not the way I remember it. First, it is not believable that the Black Panthers, et. al., would “ask” anyone anything, and second, those trying to further civil rights, like most of the rest of the population, were intimidated by the violent and violence prone black power movement and thus didn’t need anyone to “ask” them to step aside.

Chuck Klein

***********************************************************