RELIGION OR POLITICS

RELIGION or POLITICS ???

2011-04-19T12:05:00.000-07:00

Hello anybody, because I have an idea that nobody will be logging onto my blog anymore since I stopped putting out any type on news on either politics or religion. Well, simply because as hard as I could try to build and interest in these fields and as a Nichiren Buddhist, I, sorry to say, had not one soul as far as I know who came back and offered comments on my efforts. So I concluded that these subjects aroused no loyal interested folks. By chance if a\someone should stumble on this blog today I'd welcome a message of the visit. Thanks Ta Ta CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ???

2011-03-21T08:46:00.000-07:00

Greetings my friends, hey, how's it going as this first day of the week unfolds, or, shouldn't I ask???? That bad, huh? Oh well, cheer up, it will get better as the week plays out.

Now, I am not sure where I am going with this blog, or if I am going at all.   I thought there would be more interest to guys and gals, in these fields of politics and religion, if only to justify their differences of opinions as opposed to mine. Or to defend why they are one religion or another, OR, why they are a republican, democrat, or independent. So far I've had no one respond. Does that mean no one watches?   I don't know. But if not, I've got a decision to make, keep going and hoping pround Americans will be interested in what I write about. Or, spiritually minded folks who are interested in differences of opinion on why a person is of a certain religion or another. As anyone visiting here in time knows I am a Nichiren Buddhist. Proudly and happily so, and I can tell you why at the drop of a hat. And why I think that religions are "our weakest link", since I think they are divisive.   Disagree?, tell me about it. Liberal, Conservative, far-lefter --far-righter?

After this week I will decide.   Meantime check out these tid-bits.

*******
There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true.

~Sir Winston Churchill
*******

Cynical Meanings ...............

Cigarette: A pinch of tobacco rolled in paper with fire at one end and a fool on the other.

Divorce: Future tense of marriage.

Lecture: An art of transferring information from the notes of the Lecturer to the notes of the students without passing through "the minds of either."

Conference: The confusion of one man multiplied by the number present.

Compromise: The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody believes he got the biggest piece.

Tears: The hydraulic force by which masculine will-power is defeated by feminine water power...

Dictionary: A place where success comes before work.

Conference Room: A place where everybody talks, nobody listens and everybody disagrees later on.

Classic: A book which people praise, but do not read.

Smile: A curve that can set a lot of things straight.

Office: A place where you can relax after your strenuous home life.

Yawn: The only time some married men ever get to open their mouth.

Cheers.     CJ

2011-03-18T10:21:00.000-07:00

Well friends, here it is again, and despite all of our differences and problems the world keeps turning and
friday is here, and I suppose you are ready for what goodies the weekend might provide. I have no topic to present to you today and so am going to fill in with some wisdom both Eastern and Western so relax and give yourself a little more "down in the street wisdom & Live smart stuff".

The government that can protect you from your enemies can be used as easily by your enemies to harm you.

~Harry Browne

A happy person is not a person in a certain set of circumstances, but rather a person with a certain set of attitudes.

~Hugh Downs

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

~Thomas Edison

1. There are 3 kinds of Law: Social and Moral;   culturally and acceptable behavior;    civil and criminal law, or legally acceptable behavior;    and Universal Law or Cause and Effect.   We may avoid the consequences of the first two, but NEVER the third.

2. It is much easier to 'say' what is just and right, than it is to do what is just and right.

3. There is always a piece of fortune in Misfortune.

4. In all the affairs of life, at every moment, we have a choice.

5. From the previous day, upon awakening, so to are we born with our karma from previous existences. In this way, just as we sleep and wake, we are born and die, maintaining an eternal cycle of life.

FINALLY, NICHIREN BUDDHISM, THE BUDDHISM OF THE 'SUN', IS SHEDDING ITS LIGHT ALL AROUND TEH WORLD.   WE HAVE ARRIVED AT A TIME IN WHICH OUR MOVEMENT FOR PEACE, CULTURE AND EDUCATION, GROUNDED INT BUDDHIST PRINCIPLES, MUST SEND ITS LIGHT OF HOPE THROUGHOUT SOCIETY.

Here is to Hope, Health, and Happiness to each of you.    Cheers      CJ

2011-03-16T11:49:00.000-07:00

Brian T. Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, and who has also written for such as the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and Investor's Business Daily. This article was published in the Newsletter, IMPRIMIS. by Hillsdale College. Let's get to it. You've read the Koran Suras to set up your base for understanding one of America's BIGGEST PROBLEM ahead.)

Ah Yes, and here it is mid-week again, and the clouds keep getting darker, but so help me, despite what still seems like public apathy, I think underneath it all, there is a growing antipathy toward this administration, and somewhere along the months ahead, this will turn into full blown action to correct this current trend towards economic disaster. Say, along about Nov. 4, 2012....   Now let's complete my blog on "Not just the economy, stupid".

My last blog finished making reference to our winning the Cold War, and of Russian (at that time) government's brutally repressive domestic policies and their strengthened alliances with America's enemies. Then suggesting that our Conservatives had overdone the winning..... We go on.....

       Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that our policy toward Russia has been exceedingly foolish.   For the past two decades we have paid the Russians to dismantle nuclear warheads they would have dismantled anyway, while they have used those resources to modernize their ballistic missiles.   On our part, we have not even tested a nuclear warhead since 1992 -- which is to say that we aren't certain they work anymore.   Nor have we maintained any tactical nuclear weapons..   Nor, to repeat, have we built the missile defense system first proposed by President Reagan.

       Just last month, with bipartisan backing from members of the foreign policy establishment, the Senate ratified the New Start Treaty, which will further reduce our nuclear arsenal and will almost certainly cause further delays in building missile defenses -- and this with a nation that engages in massive deception against us, supports our enemies, and builds ever more advanced nuclear weapons.

       At the heart of America's strategic defense policy today is the idea of launching a retaliatory nuclear against whatever nuclear power attacks us.   But absent reliable confidence in the lethality of forces, such a deterrent is meaningless.   In this light, deliberatin about the need for a robust modernization program, rather than arms reductions through New Start, would have been a better way for Congress to spend the days leading up to Christmas -- which is to say, it would have been supportive of our strategic defense policy, rather than undercutting it.

       But what about that stretegic policy?   Some of New Start's supporters argued that reducing rather than modernizing our nuclear arsenal places us on the moral high ground in our dealings with other nations.   But can any government claim to occupy the moral high ground when it willingly, knowingly, and purposely keeps its people nakedly vulnerable to nuclear missiles??

       The Russians understand well the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the American defense establishment, and have carefully orchestrated things for two decades so that we remain preoccupied with threats of Nort Korean and now Iranian ballistic missiles.   We spend our resources developing modest defense systems to deal, albeit inadequately, with these so-called rogue states, and meanwhile forego addressing the more serious threat from Russia and China, both of which are modernizing their forces.

      Who is to say that there will never come a time when the destruction or nuclear blackmail of the U.S. will be in the interest of the Russians or the Chinese??   Do we imagine that respect for human life or human rights will stop these brutal tyrannies from acting on such a determination.?

      If I (author) sound pessimistic, I don't mean to.   Whatever kind of self-deception gripped the architects of our current defense policies, the American people have proved capable of forcing a change in direction when they learn the facts.   Americans do not wish to be subjected to Sharia law, owe large sums of money to the Chinese, or be kept vulnerable to nuclear missiles.   Having responded resoundingly to the economic and constitutional crisis represented by Obamacare, it is now time for us to remind our representatives of the constitutional requirement to provide for a common defense -- in the TRUE sense of the word.    Finis

Thanks all for stopping by and getting enlightened on a serious subject, if you didn't already realize it. You no doubt are aware of rising prices in every direction that affects the pocketbook or purse, so, are you prepared for it to get worse?Or as has so often been said, "Can't hurt".     Cheers     CJ

2011-03-14T10:44:00.000-07:00

(Brian T. Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, and who has also written for such as the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and Investor's Business Daily. This article was published in the Newsletter, IMPRIMIS. by Hillsdale College. Let's get to it. You've read the Koran Suras to set up your base for understanding one of America's BIGGEST PROBLEM ahead.)

Hi people, hope all your weekends were Heaven compared to what happened in Japan. Personally I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to live through such a horrot. Of course it does no good to dwell on that aspect, but it does give us all an opportunity to be supportive there wherever we might be badly needed. WE who are proudly of the GREAT HEARTS!!!!

Anyway, to continue with the last episode to those of us who are anything but Stupid, right?    To Go On......

      China has for some time carried out a policy that has been termed "peaceful rise".    But in recent years we have seen the coming to power of what scholars like Tang Ben called the "Red Guard generation" -- generals who grew up during the Cultural Revolution, who are no longer interested in China remaining a secondary power, and who appear eager to take back Taiwan, avenge past wrongs by Japan and replace the U.S. as the preeminent military power in the region and ultimately the world.

       However far-fetched this idea may seem to American policymakers, it is widely held in China that America is on the decline, with economic problems that will limit its ability to modernize its military and maintain its alliances.    And indeed, as things stand, the U.S. would have to resort to full-scale nuclear war to defenc its Asian allies from an attack by China.

       This is the prospect that caused Mao Tse Tsung to call the U.S. a "Paper Tiger".   Retired Chinese General Xiong Guong Kai expressed much the same idea in 1995, when he said that the U.S. would not trade Los Angeles for Taipei -- that is, that we would have to stand by if China attacks Taiwan, since China has the ability to annihilate Los Angeles with a nuclear missile.    In any case, current Chinese aggression against Japan in the Senkaku Islands and their open assistance of the Iranian nuclear program, not to mention their sale of arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, would suggest that China is openly playing the role that the Soviet Union once played as chief sponsor of global conflict with the West.

      Which brings us to Russia and to the degradation of American strategic thinking during and after the Cold War.   This thinking used to be guided bg the idea that we must above all prevent a direct attack upon the U.S. homeland.    But over the past 50 years we have been taught something different: that we must accept a balance of power between nations, especially those possessing nuclear ballistic missiles;   and that we cannot seek military superiority -- including defensive superiority, as with missile defense -- lest we create strategic instability.

       This is now the common liberal view taught at universities, think tanks and schools of foreigh service.    Meanwhile, for their part, conservatives have been basking in the glow of "winning the Cold War".    But in what sense was it won, it might be asked, given that we neither disarmed Russia of its nuclear arsenal nor put a stop to its active measures to undermine us.   The transformation of some of the former captive ntions into liberal democracies is certainly worth celebrating, but given Russion government's brutally repressive domestic policies and strengthened alliances with America's enemies abroad over the past 20 years, conservatives have overdone it.

Closing now for this monday and of course a new week to work on more history. Oh did you notice that with all the turmoil in the middles east and Japan, Obama wa faulted for not answering questions on four big topics, yet he is playing golf today, and planning a trip to South America shortly. Isn't it good to feel that we have a President who is concerned and interested in Ameria's place in this world as a TRUE LEADERs and on top of everything that is happening?   Hmmmmmmm?????    Cheers      CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Rules for Economic Recovery ......cont'd.

2011-03-11T10:37:00.000-08:00

(It is written by Brian T. Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, and who has also written for such as the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and Investor's Business Daily. This article was published in the Newsletter, IMPRIMIS. by Hillsdale College. Let's get to it. You've read the Koran Suras to set up your base for understanding one of America's BIGGEST PROBLEM ahead.)

And happy TGIF to you too. My last line from Wednesday read "Yet even to raise a question of whether Islam presents a domestic threat today is to invite charges of bigotry or worse". So we pick it up from there.

NOT JUST THE ECONOMY, STUPID........

       And as dangerous as it potentially is, this domestic threat pales in comparison to the foreign threat from the Islamic Republic of IRAN and its allies -- a threat that is existential in nature.   The government in Tehran, of course, is enriching uranium to convert to plutonium and place in a nuclear warhead.    Iran has advanced ballesitic missiles such as the Shahab-3, which can be launched from land or sea and is capable of destroying an American city.   Even worse, if the Iranians were able to deliver the warhead as an electomagnetic pulse weapon from a ship off shore -- a method they have been practicing, by the way -- they could destroy the electronic infrastructure of the U.S. and cause the deaths of millions or more.   And let me be perfectly clear: We do not today have a missile defense system in place that is capable of defending against either a ship-launched missile attack by Iran or a ballistic missile attack from China or Russia. We do not yet today have such a system in place, even though we are capable of building one.

       Since I (author) have mentioned China and Russia, let me turn to them briefly in that order.   The U.S. trades with China and the Chinese buy our debt.   Currently they have $2 trillion in U.S. reserves, about half of which is in U.S. treasuries.   Their economy and ours are intimately intertwined.   For this reason it is thought that the Chinese will not go to war with us.   Why, after all, would they want to destroy their main export market.???

       On the other hand, China is building an advanced army, navy, airforce, and space-based capability that is clearly designed to limit the U.S. and its ability to project power in Asia.   It has over two million men under arms adn possesses an untold number of ICBMs -- most of them aimed a the U.S. -- and hundreds of short and medium-range nuclear missiles.   China's military thinking is openly centered on opposing American supremacy, and its military journals openly discuss unrestricted warfare, atomic warfare, and terrorism.   China is also working to develop a space-based military capability and investing in various launch vehicles, including manned spaceflight, a space station, and extensive anti-satellite weaponry aimed at negating U.S. global satellite coverage.

       Absent a missile defense capable of intercepting China's ballistic missiles, the U.S. would be hard pressed to maintain even its current security commitments in Asia.   The U.S. Seventh Fleet, however capable, cannot withstand the kinds of nuclear missiles and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that China could employ against it.   The Chinese have studied American capabilities, and have built weapons meant to negate our advantages.   The destructive capability of the recently unveiled Chinese DF-21D missile against our aircraft carriers significantly raises the stakes of a conflict in the South China Sea.   and the SS-N-22 cruise missile -- designed by the Russians and deployed by the Chinese and Iranians -- present a daunting challenge to its enormous size and Mach 3 speed. (To be continued on Monday). Hey. are you getting the picture????

OK,  so much for this wonderful week. Unfortunately, the dire things in the futur, near or otherwise, are not tomorrow or next week or month, it is just an insidious movement that causes many people to shrug and say "oh well, maybe it isn'' going to happen and I'll wait and fact up to it, IF it happens""   Kaboom, and that attitude is WHY it happens.   All I can say, hey, be alert, awake and vigilant. Prepare for what might and could happen, and if it doesn't, breath a sigh of relief and be damned grateful.     Cheers      CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Never Just The Economy, Stupid - Cont'd.

2011-03-09T10:57:00.000-08:00

Happy Wednesday to you, friends. I am convinced this to be a very important article for everyone to read, bar none. It is written by Brian T. Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, and who has also written for such as the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and Investor's Business Daily. This article was published in the Newsletter, IMPRIMIS. by Hillsdale College. Let's get to it. You've read the Koran Suras to set up your base for understanding one of America's BIGGEST PROBLEM ahead.

NOT JUST THE ECONOMY, STUPID.....

      It is often said that to point out these verses is to cherry pick unfairly the most violent parts of the Koran.   In response, I(author) assert that we must try to understand Muslims as they understand themselves.    And I hasten to add that the average American Muslim does not understand the Koran with any level of detail.   So I am not painting a picture here of the average Muslim. I am trying to understand those Muslims, both here in the U.S. and abroad, who actively seek the destruction of America.

      Here at home, the threat is posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its organizational arms, such as the Council on American on Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the various Muslim student associations.   These groups seek to persuade Americans that Islam is a religion of peace.   But let me quote to you from a document obtained during the 2007 Holy Land Trial investigating terrorist funding.   It is a Muslim Brotherhood Strategic Memorandum on North American Affairs that was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference in l987. It speaks of "Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, present Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is".

Elsewhere this document says:

      The process of settlement is a "Civilization-JIHADIST Process" with all the means.   The IKHWAN {the Muslim Brotherhood} must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand JIHAD in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.   Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for JIHAD yet.   It is a Muslim's destiny to perform JIHAD and work wherever he is and wherever lands until the final hour comes......

       Now during the Bush administration the number of Muslims in the U.S. was typically estimated to be around three million.   The Pew Research Center in 2007 estimated it to be 2.35 million.   In 2000, the Council on American Islamic Relation put the number at five million. And President Obama in his Cairo speech two years ago put it at seven million.

       In that light, consider a 2007 survey of American Muslim opinion conducted by the Pew Research Center.   Eight percent of American Muslims who took part in this survey said they believed that suicide bombing can sometimes be justified in the defense of Islam.   Even accepting a low estimate of three million Muslims in the U.S., this would mean that 240,000 among us held that suicide bombing in the name of Islam can be justified.

        Among American Muslims 18-29 years old, 15 percent agreed with that and 60 percent said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and American second.   Among all particpants in the survey, five percent -- and five percent of the low estimate of three million Muslims in America is 150,000 -- said they had a favorable view of al Qaeda.

       Given these numbers, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the political aims and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood represent a domestic threat to national security.   It is one thing to have hundreds of terrorist sympathizers within our borders, but quite another if that number is in the hundreds of thousands.   Consider the massacre at Fort Hood: Major Nidal Malik Hasan believed that he was acting as a devout Muslim -- indeed, he believed he was obeying a religious mandate to wage war against his fellow soldiers. Yet even to raise the question of whether Islam presents a domestic threat today is to invite charges of bigotry or worse.

OK, I am cutting here and will continue on Friday. My blog friday starts out thusly -- AND AS DANGEROUS AS IT POTENTIALLY IS, THIS DOMESTIC THREAT PALES IN COMPARISON TO THE FOREIGN THREAT FROM THE ILSAMIC THREAT FROM THE iSLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN AND ITS ALLIES --- Are you all getting the picture??
If not come visit again then, and you will be convinced.     Cheers      CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Never Just The Economy, Stupid

2011-03-07T17:17:00.000-08:00

Happy Monday to you friends. I believe this to be a very important article for everyone to read, bar none. It is written by Brian T. Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, and who has also written for such as the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and Investor's Business Daily. This article was published in the Newsletter, IMPRIMIS. by Hillsdale College. Let's get to it.

IT'S NEVER JUST THE ECONOMY, STUPID------

      We are often told that we possess the most powerful military in the world and that we face no serious threat for some time to come. We are conforted with three reassurances aimed at deflecting any serious discussion of national security: (1)   that Islam is a religion of peace;   (2) that we will never go to war with China because our economic interests are intertwined; and (3) that America won the Cold War and Russia is no longer our enemy.   But these reassurances are MYTHS,  propagated on the right and left alike.   We believe them at our peril, because serious threats are already upon us.

      Let me begin with Islam.   We were assured that it was a religion of peace immediately following September 11.   President Bush, a good man, believed or was persuaded that true Islam was not that different from Judaism or Christianity.   He said in a speech in October 2001, just a month after the attacks on the Twin Towers and The Pentagon; "Islam is a vibrant faith... We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam.   They've hijacked a great religion."   But unfortunately, Mr. Bush was trying to understand Islam as we would like it to be rather than how countless devout Muslims understand it.

      Organizationally, Islam is built around a belief in God or Allah, but it is equally a political ideology organized around the Koran and the teachings of its founder Muhammad.   Whereas Christianity teaches that we should render unto Caesar's and unto God what is God's -- allowing for a non-theocratic political tradition to develop in the West, culminating in the principles of civil and religious liberty in the Ameerican founding -- Islam teaches tha to disagree with or even reinterpret the Koran's 6000 odd verses, organized into 114 chapters or Suras and dealing as fully with law and politics as with matters of faith, is punishable by DEATH.

      Islamic authorities of all the major branches of Islam hold that the Koran must be read so that the parts written last override the others.   This so-called theory of abrogation means that the ruling parts of the Koran are those written after Muhammad went to Medina in 622 A.D.   Specifically, they are Suras 9 and 5, which are not the Suras containing the verses often cited as proof of Islam's peacefulness.

      Sura 9, verse 5, reads: "Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them in every stratagem of war.   But if they repent, and establish egular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them...."

      Sura9, verse 29, reads: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the 40 people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

      Sura 5, verse 51, reads: "Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protctors to each other.   And he amongst you that turn to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust."
      And Sura 3, verse 28, introduces the doctring of TAQIYYA, which holds that Muslims should not be friends with the infidel EXCEPT AS DECEPTION, always with the end goal of converting. subduing, or destroying him.

That is it for today, friend, and please be clear on just esactly what this says, and so why would you need any further proog of where we in America stand with the Muslim and Islamic faiths. For your life, if not already, wake up to the facts and do not be deterred in your mission to wake up and stand up for the America of our Constitution. I shall continue this and it gets even better, so be sure to come back as I bring you more on this subject. Cheers    CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Rules for Economic Recovery ......cont'd.

2011-03-04T16:55:00.000-08:00

Hi Ho, and away we go, and since it is friday, like in TGIF, I must complete this weeks topic on Rules of Recovery. What has been presented here during this week, you all should know the source, and what it has to do with the economy as in past history. Today I will show the Relevance. As you all know the contents of all blogs this week come from the newsletter IMPRIMIS published by Hillsdale College. All of it was written by Amity Shlaes, senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations.

RELEVANCE FOR TODAY ---------

        It is not hard to see some of today's troubles as a repeat of the errors of the 1930s.   There is arrogance up top.   The fereal government is dilettantish with money and exhibits disregard and even hostility to all other players.   It is only as a result of this that economic recovery seems out of reach.

      The key to recovery, now, as in the 1930s, is to found in property rights. These rights suffer under our current politics in several ways.   The mortgage crisis, for example, arose out of a long-standing erosion of the property rights concept - first on the part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but also on that of the Federal Reserve.   Broadening FDR's entitlement theories, Congress taught the country that home ownership was a "right."   This fostered a misunderstanding of what property is.    The owners didn't realize what ownership entailed - that is, they didn't grasp that they were obligated to deliver on the terms of the contract of their mortgage. In the bipartisan enthusiasm for making everyone on owner, our government debased the concept of home ownership.

      Property rights are endangered as well by the ongoing assault on contracts generally.    A perfect example of this was the treatment of Chrysler bonds during the company's bankruptcy, where senior secured creditors were ignored, notwithstanding the status of their bonds under bankruptcy law.   The current administration made a political decision to subordinate those contracts to union demands. That sent a dangerous signal for the future that U.S. bonds are not trustworthy.

       Three other threats to property loom. One is tax increases, such as the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts.   More taxes mean less private private property.   A second threat is in the area of infrastructure.   Stimulus plans tend to empasize infrastructure - especially roads and railroads. And after the Supreme Court's KELO decision of 2005, the federal government will have enormous license to use eminent domain to claim private property for their purposes.   Third and finally, there is the worst kind of confiscation of private property, which excessive government spending necesssarily encourages.   Many of us sense that inflation is closer than the country thinks.

      If the experience of the Great Depression taches anythin, it is that property rights must be firmly established or else we will not have thekind of economic that leads to strong recovery.   The Monopoly board game reminds us that economic growth isn't mysterious and inscrutable.  Economic growth depends on the impulse of the small businessman and entrepreneur to get back in the game.   In order for this to happen, we don't need a perfect government.   All we need is one that is "not too bad," whose rules are not constantly changing and snuffing out the willingness of these players to take risks.   We need a government under which the money supply doesn't change unpredictabley, there are not too many "Go to jail" cards, and the top hats are confident to the possibility of seeing significant returns on investment.

      Recovery won't happen from the top.   But when those at the top step back and create the proper conditions, it will happen down there on the board - one house at a time.

I wish all a happy weekend, and that you wise ones will take this presentation to your good senses, because the things that are going to happen in this country will defy your imagination, because most of you will shrug your shoulders and say whatever happens I'll take care of it then. Well, friend, that will be too late, there are too many factions in this country and around the world who are diligently working to sink America to levels you couldn't believe, UNLESS you listen to people whom you might say, Oh they're crazy.   They are not, but many will learn the hard way and it won't be at all pretty.  Be warned, if only by me, who believes the danger signs rampant all over the place. So Pleasant dreams, and will be back monday with a whole new-old topic which will further make the case.    Cheers.     CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Rules for Economic Recovery ......cont'd.

2011-03-02T17:09:00.000-08:00

Hi midweekers, How's it going with y'all for this week, some good, some not so good??? Yeah, well that's life, eh? I am going to continue with the present topic, which is after the scene in the court case of the Schecters, butchers in the chicken market from Brooklyn, N.Y., in 1935, represented by Louis Spatz. (This article was written by Amity Shlaes, senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreigh Relations. As published by Hillsdale College in their montly newsletter, IMPRIMIS.

More on the ARROGANCE AND DISCRETION section.

      Regarding monetary policy, it is clear that there wasn't enough money in the early 1930s.   So Roosevelt was not wrong in trying to reflate.   But though his general idea was right, the discretionary aspect of his policy was terrifying.   As Henry Morgenthau reports in his diaries, prices ser set by the president personally.   FDR took the U.S. off the gold standard in April 1933, and by summer he was setting the gold price every morning from his bed.   Morgenthau reports that at one point the president ordered the gold price up 21 cents. Why 21, Morgenthau asked. Roosevelt replied, because it's 3 x 7, and three is a lucky number.   "Of anyone knew how we set the gold price," wrote Morgenthau in his diary," they would be frightened."

      Discretionary policies aimed at cleaning up Wall Street were destructive as well.   The New Dealers attacked the wealthy as "money changers" and "Princes of Property."   In l937, after his re-election, Roosevelt delivered an inaugural address in which he described government as an instrument of "unimagined power" which should be used to "fashion a higher order of things".   This caused business to freeze in its tracks.   Companies went on what Roosevelt himself resentfully termed a "capital strike".

      These capital strikers mattered because they were even more important to recovery than the Schecters.   Consider the case of Alfred Lee Loomis, who had the kind of mind that could contribute significantly to Gross Domestic Product and job creation.   During the First World War, he had improved the design of firearms for the U.S. Army.    In the 1920s, he became wealthy through his work in investment banking.   He moved in a crowd that was developing a new form of utility company that might finally be able to marshal the capital to bring electricity to the American South.   But when Loomis saw that the Roosevelt administration washauling utilities executives down to Washington for hearings, he shut down his business, retreated to his Tudor house, and ran a kind of private think tank for his own benefit.   We have heard a lot about a labor surfeit in the 1930s. Here is a heresy: What if there was a shortage of TALENT brought on by declaration of class warfare?

      Another challenge to the Depression economy was tax increases.   While these increases didn't achieve the social equality at which they were aimed, they did significant damage by confiscating too much individual and corporate property.   As a result, many individuals and businesses simply reduced or halted production -- especially as teh New Deal wore on. In the late 1930s, banker Leonard Ayres of the Cleveland Trust Company said in teh New Times:   "For nearly a decade now the great majority of corporations have been losing money instead of making it."

      As for big labor, the Wagner Act of 1935 proved to be quite destructive. It brought on drastic changes at factories including the closed shop -- the exclusion of non-union members.   Another innovation it helped bring about was the sit-down strike, which threatened the basic property right of factory owners to close their doors.   Most importantly, it gave unions the power to demand higher wages -- and they did.   A wage chart for the 20th century shows that real wages in the 1930s were higher than the trend for the rest of the century.   This seems perverse, considering the economic conditions at the time.   The result was high paying jobs for a few and high unemployment for everyone else.   The reality of overpriced labor can be seen in several stock phrases coming out of the Great Depression-- "Nice work if you can get it," for example, was the refrain of a Gershwin song performed by Fred Astaire in THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS, a film released in 1937 at the zenith of union power.

      To return to the Monopoly board metaphor, the problem in the 1930s was not that there was no bank.   It was that there was too much bank -- in the form of the federal government.    The government took an argitraty approach to the money supply and made itself the most powerful player.   It shoved everyone else aside so that it could monopolize the board.   Benjamin Anderson, a Chase economist at the tiem, summed it up in a book about the period:   "Preceding chapters have explained the Great Depression of 1930 to 1939 as due to the efforts of the governments and very especially the government of the United States to play God.

OK, this will close for hump day and will finish this topic on friday by explaining the RELEVANCE FOR TODAY in its regard.   This should give some of the younger ones an idea of this 1930s age and what set the stage for the Progressive movement to take off and get this country setup for socialism, which you Must agree is fast approaching reality unless Americans wake up. I heard a statement today that sort of fits, that Americans have become a bunch of cowards. And I guess you could make a case for it, but I will hold on to the thought, that when it boils down to push and shove, Americans will rise up to the occasion and show the world the real "who we really are... "Tough and proud."   Cheers CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Rules for Economic Recovery ......

2011-02-28T11:05:00.000-08:00

Greetings and happy new week, good citizens. We continue with the Rules Of Economic Recovery written by Amity Shlaes, syndicated columnist for Bloombert and a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations. The contents were published by Hillsdale College, in their monthly newsletter..

The following is the dialogue in the court case against the Schechters, who were wholesale butchers in Brooklyn, N.Y. Their crime was doing all the wrong things against the Code of Fair Competition for the Poultry Industry of the Metropolitan area  in and about the City of New York. They paid their butchers too little. They charged prices that were too low. The allowed coustomers to pick there own chickens. Worst of all they sold a sick chicken.

      In the court, on one side stands Walter Lyman Rice, a graduate of Harvard Law School, representing the government. On the other stands a small man in the poultry trade, Louis Spatz, who is afraid of going to jail. Spatz tries to defend his actions.   But he barely speaks English, and the prosecutor bullies him. Nevertheless, Spatz is now and then able to articulatge, in his simple and common sense way, how business realy works.

Prosecutor:   But do you claim to be an expert?
Spatz:   No

Prosecutor: On the competitive practices in the poultry industry?
Spatz:   I would want to get paid, if I wan an expert.

Prosecutor:  You are not an expert?
Spatz: I am experienced, but not an expert....

Prosecutor:   You have not studied agricultural economics?
Spatz:    No Sir.

Prosecutor:   Or any sort of economics?
Spatz:    No, sir.

Prosecutor:   What is your education?
Spatz:   None, very little.

Prosecutor:    None at all??
Spatz: Very little

Then at one point this everyman sort of pulls himself together.

Prosecutor:  And you would not endeavor to explain economic consequences of competitive practices?
Spatz:   In my business I am the best economist.

Prosecutor:   What is that?
Spatz:   In my business I am the best economizer.

Prosecutor:   You are the best economizer?
Spatz:   Yes, without figuring.

Prosecutor:   I wish to have that word spelled in the minutes, just as he stated it.
Spatz:   I do not know how to spell.

      This dialogue matters because little businesses like Shechter Poultry are the natural drivers of recovery, and during the Great Depression they weren't allowed to do that driving. They weren't allowed to compete and accumulate wealth -- or, in terms of Monopoly, to place a house or hotel on their property.   Instead they were sidelined.   The Schechter brothers ultimately won their case in the Supreme Court in 1935. But the cost of the lawsuits combined with the Depression did not go away.

OK, this is it for monday and I will carry on this topic again on Wednesday.  Thanks for stopping by. Cheers CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Rules for Economic Recovery ......cont'd.

2011-02-25T17:20:00.000-08:00

Ah yes, and a great TGIF to you, too. And may your weekend be as happy as you can make, and if you are not a happy person, get back to me and I'll show you how to be unbreakably happy. But for now I must continue with the Rules of Economic Recovery. And I hope you are paying attention.

ARROGANCE AND DISCRETION.............

       Consider the centerpiece of the New Deal's first 100 days, The National Recovery Administration(NRA), which was in effect an enormous multisector mechanism calibrated to manage the business cyle through industrial codes that, among other things, regulated prices.    The principles on which its codes were based appear risible from the perspective of microeconomics and common sense.   They included the idea that prices needed to be pushed up to make recovery possible, whereas competition constrained recovery by driving prices down.   They held that big firms in industry -- those "too big to fail" -- were to write codes for all members of their sector, large and small -- which naturally worked to the advantage of those larger firms.    As for the consumers choice, it was deemed inefficient and an inhibitor of recovery.

       The absurdity of these principles was overlooked, however, because they were put forth by great minds.   One member of the Brain Trust, Ray Moley, described the myopic credentialism of this fellow Brain Trusters, Felix Frankfurter, in this way:

         The problems of economic life were to Frankfurter matters were to be settled in a law office, a court room, or around a big labor-management bargaining table ...... The government was the protagonist.   Its agents were its lawyers and commissioners. The antagonists were big corporate lawyers. In the background were misty principals whom Frankfurter never really knew at first hand.... These background figures were owners of the corporations, managers, workers and consumers.

        One family that was targeted by the NRA bureaucrats was the Schechters, who were wholesale chicken butchers in Brooklyn. The NRA code that aimed to regulate what they did was called THE CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE LIVE POULTRY INDUSTRY OF THE METROPPOLITAN AREA IN AND ABOUT THE CITY OF NEW YORK. And according to this code, the Schecters did all the wrong things.   The paid their butchers too little.   They charged prices that were too low.   They allowed their customers to pick their own chickens.   Worst of all, they sold a sick chicken.   As a result of these supposed crimes, they were prosecuted.

       The prosecution would have been comic if it were not business tragedy.   Imagine the court room scene:   On one side stands Walter Lyman Rice, a graduate of Harvard Law School, representing the government.   On the other stands a small man in the poultry trade, Louis Spatz, who is afraid of going to jail.   Spatz tries to defend his actions. But he barely speaks English, and the prosecutor bullies him.   Nevertheless, Spatz is now and then able to articulate, in his simple and common-sense way, how business really works.

Got to stop here friends, but will continue on monday, starting with the prosecution qustioning Mr. Spatz. Very interesting, so please do come back and visit then.  You are much appreciated.    CHeers      CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Rules for Economic Recovery ......See Year 1930

2011-02-23T17:31:00.000-08:00

(This content was taken from a lecture at Hillsdale College by Amity Shlaes, syndicated columnist for Bloomberg. and a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations.)   So here we go.

If you are wise enough to liesten to Glenn Beck you will know that serious trouble is brewing world-wide. The focal point of it all is aimed directly at Israel and the USA. Check oil prices and food. I hope it doesn't take a wrap to the head to wake up, and even better, LISTEN TO GLENN BECK. Even if he is wrong, will be an excuse for a real celebration.

       How is this game of Monopoly relevant to the Great Depression?   We all know the traditional narrative of that event:   The stock market crash generated an economic Katrina.   One in four was unemployed in the first few years.   It resulted from a combination of monetary, banking, credit, international, and consumer confidence factors.   The terrible thing about it was the duration of high level of unemployment, which averaged in the mid teens for the entire decade.

       The second thing we usually learn is the Depression was mysterious -- a problem that only experts with doctorates could solve.   That is why FDR's floating advisory group -- Felix Frankfurter, Frances Perkins, George Warren, Marriner Eccles and Adolf Berle, among others -- was sometimes known as a Brain Trust.   The mystery had something to do with a shortage of money, we are told, and in the end, only a Brain Trust's tinkering with the money supply saved us.   The corollary to this view is that the government knows more than American business does about economics.

       Another common presumption is that cleaning up Wall Street and getting rid of white-collar criminals helped the nation recovery.   A second is that property rights may still have mattered less than government-created jobs, shoring up home-owners, and getting the money supply right.   A third is that American democracy was threatened by the rise of potential plutocracy, and that the Wagner Act of 1935 -- which lent federal support to labor unions -- was thus necessry and proper.   Fourth and finally, the tradional and finally, the traditional viw of the 1930's is that action by the government was good, whereas inaction would have been fatal.

       The economic crisis mandated any kind of action, no matter how far removed it might be from sound monetary policy.   Along these lines the humorist Will Rogers wrote in 1933 that if Franklin Roosevelt had "burned down the capital, we would cheer and say "Well at least we got a fired started anyhow".

       To put this official version of the 1930s in terms of the Monopoly board: The American economy was failing because there were too many top hats lording it about on the board, trying to establish a plutocracy, and because there was no bank to hand out money.   Under FDR, the federal government became the bank and pulled America back to economic health.

     When you go to research the 1930s, however, you will find a different story.. It is of course true that the early part of the Depression -- the years upon which most economist have focused -- wa an economic Katrina.   And a number of New Deal measures provided lasting benefits for the economy   These include the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the push for free trade led by the Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the establishment of the modern mortgage format.   But the remaining evidence contradicts the official narrative.    Overall, it can be said, government PREVENTED RECOVERY.   Herbert Hoover was too active, not too passive -- as the old stereotypes suggest --while Roosevelt and his New Deal policies impeded recovery as well, especially during the the latter half of the decade.

       In short, the prolonged Depression can be put down to government arrogance -- arrogance that came at the expense of economic common sense, the rule of law, and respect for property rights.

Checking out here and looking forward to the next chapter of section of this wonderful history lesson. You should start to see similarities or may already have.     Cheers    CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Rules for Economic Recovery ......

2011-02-21T17:17:00.000-08:00

Ah yes my friends, here we all are after a good weekend and ready to get smarter for having visited this site today and for the rest of the week, at least. This blog is about the Economic Recovery that has not recovered yet and is a long way from doing so. But here are the rules of the game involved as this admin fumbles and bumbles along.    Let's pray some sensible heads will persevere and get this country turned to the right direction.

This content was taken from a licture at Hellsdale College by Amity Shlaes, syndicated columnist for Bloomberg. and a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations.   So here we go.

THE RULES OF THE GAME AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY----

       The Monopoly board game originated during the Great Depression.   At firts its inventor, Charles Darrow, could not interest manufacturers.   Parker Brothers turned the game down, citing "52 design errors".   But Darrow produced his own copies of the game, and Parker Brothers finally bought Monopoly.   By 1935, the New York Times was reporting that "leading al other board games...is the season's craze, 'Monopoly, the game of real estate.

       Most of us are familiar with the object of Monopoly: the accumulation of property on which one places houses and hotels, and from which one receives revenue.   Many of us have a favorite token.   Perennially popular is the top hat, which symbolizes the sort of wealth to which Americans who work hard can aspire.   The top hat is a token that has remained in the game, even while others have changed over the decades.

       One's willingness to play Monopoly depends on a few conditions -- for instance, a predictable number of "Pay Income Tax" cards.   These cards are manageable when you know in advance the amount of money printed on them and how many of them and how many of them are in the deck.   It helps, too, that there are a limited and predictable number of "Go To Jail" cards.   This is what Frank Knight of the University of Chicago would call a knowable risk, as opposed to uncertainty.   Likewise, there must be a limited and predictable number of "Chance" cards.   In other words, there has to be some certainty that property rights are secure and that the risks to property are few in number and can be managed.

       The bank must be dependable, too.   There is a fixed supply on Monopoly money and the bank is supposed follow the rules of the game, exercising little or no independent discretion.   If players sit down at the Monoploy board only to discover a bank that overreaches or is too unpredictable or discretionary, we all know what happens.   They will walk away from the board.   There is no game.

I wil stop at this point, as you ae so alert to notice, and continue this presentation on Wednesday, which will be on The Relevance to the 1930s.   For all of you who are not familiar with earlier history of America, and maybe its not your fault, as in modern education in schools, but if your concern is for good old USA, then you should enjoy "the rest of the story".   You, you, and you will participate in Amercia's economical future so get into the basics here and be able to interpret what is happing today and/or as it progresses or regresses into the weeks and years ahead.   Cheers    CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ? Remember 9/11? How about 2/26/1993?

2011-02-18T17:31:00.000-08:00

RELIGION or POLITICS ? Remember 9/11? How about 2/26/1993?

Hello friends, how's it going this week.....Oh good!

Today as you may or may not note, is friday and I am back in cinc. I read this report in IMPRIMIS published by Hillsdale oollege and I felt it had a worthwhile message for some of you out there. Soo here goes. oh, this article was written my Michille Malkin, columnist for Creators Syndicate since 1999, I consider her a very knowledgable individual in American Affairs.

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY.......

So from Thursday -- Let's look at some FACTS---

There are now upwards of 20 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Roughly 1 million legal immigrants are admitted to the U.S. every year.
Some 400,000 illegal aliens have been ordered to be deported , but are on the loose in the U.S. after being released by federal immigration courts.
There are only 20,000 detention beds in the entire country to hold illegal aliens.
There are only 2,000 federal agents employed by the Department of Homeland Security to track down the estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens who are living, working, going to school, getting driver's licenses and, yes, committing crimes and plotting terrorist attacks in America as we speak.

      *Border fences to our north and south are a joke, even while we're sending money to Egypt and Mexico to help them build fences on their southern borders.

       Despite the fact that Congress created the behemoth Department of Homeland Security, there is still no systematic tracking of criminal alien felons across the country;   sanctuary for illegal aliens -- that is, deliberate non-enforcement of the laws -- remains the policy in almost every major metropolis; and "catch and release" remains standard operating procedure for untold thousands of of illegal aliens who pass through the fingers of federal immigration authorities every day.

      My book (Michelle's), INVASION, argued in reat detail that our current immigration and entrance system is in shamble, partly by neglect and partly by design.     From America's negligent consular offices overseas, to our ouous air, land, and sea points of entry, to our ineffective detention and deportation policies, our federal immigration authorities have failed at every level to protect our borders and preserve our sovereignty.

       Michelle said, Immigration in a post 9/11 world must be treated as a national security issue.   Enforcement of immigration laws must be cler and consistent.   Lawbreakers must be punished, not rewarded.   Illegal aliens must be deported, nat naturalized.   And the national interest, not special interests -- whether Big Business or liberal multiculturalism -- must drive immigration policy.

      The late Barbara,  a Texas Congresswoman -- a liberal black Democrat and respected immigration authority -- who saidhat credible immigration policy rests on three simple principles: "People who should get in, get in; people who should not enter are kept out; and people who are deortable should be rquired by law to leave.

       Contrary to the misguided claims of today's open-borders lobby, the demand for a more discriminating immigration policy - one that welcomes American dreamers and bars American destroyers -- does not stem from fear or hatred of foreigners, but from the idea of self-preservation and from love of country.


        Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution states clearly:   The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion".    We are not a boarding house for the world.   We are a sovereign nation.   It's time we started acting like one.

Right on, Michelle, you said a mouth full, doubled in spades. I hope those who read this article will keep this in your memory bank when you see riots and chaos led my illegal aliens, hiding behind the screen of legality.

Cheers      CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ? Remember 9/11? How about 2/26/1993?

2011-02-17T13:01:00.000-08:00

Hello friends, how's it going this week.....Oh good!

Today as you may or may not note, is Thursday and I am out of cinc. but I'll catch up. I read this report in IMPRIMIS published by Hillsdale oollege and I felt it had a worthwhile message for some of you out there. Soo here goes. oh, this article was written my Michille Malkin, columnist for Creators Syndicate since 1999, I consider her a very knowledgable individual in American Affairs.

IMMIGRATION & NATIONAL SECURITY-------

      We all know what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.   But, how many of us recall what happened on Feb. 26, 1993?   That was the date of the first World Trade Center attack, the precursor of 9/11 carried out by a cell of Middle Eastern jihadists.    Key members of that cell were illegal aliens.

      Mahmud Abouhalima was an Egyptian illegal alien working as a cab driver in New York.    He falsley claimed to be an agricultural worker under the illegal alien amnesty law and snagged a green card that allowed him to travel back and forth to Pakistan for al Qaeda training.    Abouhalima said he was a strawberry picker, even though he had never been anywhere near a strawberry field.    Overwhelmed INS workers -- who are driven to reduce backlogs by simply shredding or rubber stamping applications -- failed to vet his claims.

       Mohammed Salameh, the operative who rented the truck in the 1993 bombing, was denied amnesty after filing a bogus claim.   But because the INS didn't have the resources or the will to deport him, he was able to work and plot freely right under our noses.

       The mastermind of the 1993 plot and of another foiled plot to bomb New York landmarks, Sheik Abdul Rahman, won asylum here based on a fraudulent laim and was allowed ot remain thanks to a deadly combination of immigraton and intelligence lapses.    Seven people died and thousands were injured in the first World Trade Center bombing, which amounted to a trial run for the attack that would lead to the deaths of another 3,000 innocent men, women, and children eight years later.

       All of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country with short-term visas issued by the State Department consular offices abroad.   Fifteen of the 19 came from Saudi Arabia, where a special program allowed them to get fast-track visas.    The program, called Visa Express, was hatched by Anerican bureaucrats who were concerned about wealthy Saudis waiting in long lines.   So no one bothered to double-check the hijackers' applications, which were so sloppy that they made no sense. To give you a couple examples, one of them put "Washington hotel" as his ddress and another described his occupation as "Teeter".   Thus, despite obviously lying on their applications, they gained entry to plot mass murder on American soil.

       Once in the U.S. several of the hijackers needed fake government documents.   They hooked up with illegal alien day laborers who hung out at a Virginia convenience store near the Pentagon. After waiting around with a couple of $20 bills, an illegal alien from El Salvador was willing and able to give them the documents that they needed to board the planes they flew on 9/11.   The local cops whom I interviewed admit knowing that these people hanging around the convenience store were here illegally, but they did nothing about it.

        The lesson is this:   Lax immigration enforcement enables enemy foreign agents to exploit a system that was intended to welcome those who want to make better lives for themselves on our terms.    Before 9/11, our nation convinced itself that it could afford massive, systematic abuse and under-mining of immigration laws.    After 1993, in an age of Islamic terrorism and nuclear threat, we should have been permanently disabused of that notion.   But we continued in our folly.   And we continue in it still today.

Now I close and tomorrow I will contiue and complete this report and you should come back then and learn stuff that will make you uncomfortable to say the least.   So     Cheers     CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??????? WARNING !!!!!

2011-02-15T09:24:00.000-08:00

Yeah, I know it is Tuesday and I didn't get out my blog on monday which I usually do. Sorry, I hope nobody had trouble sleeping last night because of it. Just didn't have much of interest to write about, and maybe I should have said so, ya think???? Anyway, my heading today was -- WARNING. Here is why.................

There was a head line from NewsMax today entitled " THERE IS A 100% PROBILITY THAT THE U.S. WILL BE HIT BY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION". And who says?? Our F.B.I. Now if you have any sense at all, this should wake you up, if not already, that we are in trouble at home here, and relatively few seem to be concerned, or so it seems to me.

And who is going to be the perpetrator? Well, it could be a foreign terrorist, a Lone Wolf terrorist, or even someone in the criminal element.
But, one way or the other, the attack will happen sooner or later.

WHY??????

Well, if you are even half smart, you are listening and paying attention to Glenn Beck, like him or not. He said there are 50 Charter Muslim Societies in America, like Islamic American Society in Virginia.

He has claimed over the past 2-3 weeks, such as our "Western way of life is OVER". Predicting the Fall of Capitalism in the desired goal of these organizations. And it will be done from within America itself.

The initial thrust will be by revolution starting in the Middle East. This he predicted even before it happened in Egypt. What was the National Socialist Society in Germany is now Islamic Socialists, for example. Seeds are being planted constantly world wide. Again, like in Texas where the language of the future, Arabic, is being taught in schools, language and culture.

They want to turn Capitalism into New World Order, a goal of George Soros and President Obama, who doesn't believe capitalism works.

There goal in the Middle East is to wipe out Israel and then on the to the U.S. The fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam, into New World Order. All behind there method of creating revolution gradually through out M.E. and into Europe itself, and then U.S. A.

And it is happening before your very eyes and if not already, you, you and you, should wake up before we all become victims of passivity.

Take care, y'all, and see you again soon. Cheers CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Cont'd.......WHO is a CITIZEN?? Finale...

2011-02-11T10:59:00.000-08:00

Today we continue on the subject of ILLEGALS presented in the MOnthly Newsletter, IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College and written by Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino, CA.

Greetings on this TGIF day and we are all excited about another great weekend. You tooooooooo? So to get on with the closure of this particular topic, here goes........

DUAL CITIZENSHIP and DECLINE..............

      Those who advocate open borders tend to share this cosmopolitan view of transnational citizenship.   Illegal immigrants, they say, are merely seeking to support their families and improve their lives.    Borders, according to them, should not stand in the way of "family values"-- those universal "values" that refuse to recognize the importance or relevance of mere political boundaries.
Somehow, for those who hold these views, political exclusivity and the requirement of exclusive allegiance are opposed to these universal "values" if not to human decency itself.

      Mexican President Felipe Calderon was in California recently pushing for more liberal immigration immigration policies. He assured his fellow citizens who reside in the U.S. that he is "actively working to defend their human rights," no matter their immigration status, Calderon said, "they are human beings with dignity and rights that should be respected.   We are working, with the full effort of teh Mexican government, to bring a halt to the campaigns that harass migrants."   However much Calderon may be worried about the human rights or his fellow citizens, he is fully cognizant of the fact that Mexico's economy depends on the remittances of its citizens working abroad.   These remittances have become Mexico's second largest source of revenue, trailing only its rapidly declining oil revenues.   It is far easier -- and politically safer -- for Mexico to export its poverty than to reform its own political and economic system.

      We must constanly remind ourselvesm however, of the historical fact tht constitutional democracy has existed only in the nation-state, and that the demise of the nation-state will almost certainly mean the demise of constitutional democracy.    No one believes that the Europian Union or similar organizations will ever produce constitutional government. Indeed, the EU is well on its way to becoming an adminstrative tyranny.   Nor would the homogenous world-state -- the EU on a global scale -- be a constitutional democracy; it would be the administration of "universal personhood" without the inconvenience of having to rely on the consent of the governed.

      The doctrine of birthright citizenship and the acceptance of dual citizenship are signs that we in the U.S. are on the verge of reinstituting feudalism and replacing citizenship with the master-servant relationship. The continued vitality of the nation-state and of constitutional government depends on the continued vitality of citizenship, which carries with it exclusive allegiance to what the Declaration calls a "separate and equal" nation.    Unless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.

I hope you who read this will digest what is being written and realize the dangers this country is facing over the next years ahead. Hiding your head in the sand will not make it go away, so best you wake up and get ready to defend your citizenship and your country before you realize you are no longer FREE.   Wake the hell up, huh???    Cheers     CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Cont'd.......WHO is a CITIZEN??

2011-02-10T10:53:00.000-08:00

Today we continue on the subject of ILLEGALS presented in the MOnthly Newsletter, IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College and written by Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino, CA.

Oops, sorry I had to skip publishing yesterday, went to visit my son, who is a golf teaching professional in Brandon. Fl., and you know, hit some golf balls to show off, since I am awed at how well I can hit golf balls at my age, which is quite high on the old age ladder, actually only a few years short of 100, which, incidentally, I don't believe I can break any more, ummm, or reach, but will die trying, aha, maybe close in both instances. Tempus fugits, ya know. But to go on now, and thanks for stopping by.

Dual Citizenship and Decline.......

     The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has led us to tolerate dual citizenship.    We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that those who are naturalized must owe 'exclusive allegiance' to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction.   And the citizenship oath taken today still requires a pledge of allegiance.    But in practice dual citizenship -- and dual allegiance -- is allowed.   This is a sign of the decline of American citizenship and of American citizenship and of America as a nation-state.

        It is remarkable that 85% of all immigrants arriving in the U.S. come from countries that allow -- and encourage -- dual citizenship.   Dual citizens of course, give the sending countries a unique political presence in the U.S., and many countries use theri dual citizens to promote their own interests by exerting pressure on American policy makers.    Such foreign meddling in our internal political affairs has in fact become quite routine. Thus we have created a situation where a newly naturalized citizen can swear exclusive allegiance to the U.S. while retaining allegiance to a vicious despotism or a theocratic tyranny.

       Elite liberal opinion has for many years considered the sovereign nation-state as an historical anachronism in an increasingly globalized world.   WE ar assured that human dignity adheres to the individual and does not require the mediation of the nation-state.   In this new universe of international norms, demands on the part of nation-state to exclusive allegiance or for assimilation violate "universal personhood".   In such a universe, citizenship will become superfluous or even dangerous.

Please do come back tomorrow as I will complete section and it is a good one for you to read and the information or observations therein. I will appreciate your visit.      Cheers      CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Cont'd.......WHO is a CITIZEN??

2011-02-07T08:50:00.000-08:00

Today we continue on the subject of ILLEGALS presented in the MOnthly Newsletter, IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College and written by Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino, CA.

                                                                 ********

Greetings to all on this glorious new monday and a new week. And for those who are not over the football game yesterday, well, there is always my archives. And there is a lot of blogs that you might enjoy if you happen to be here for the first time, asuuming you are interested in government and the spiritual side of life. Today we continue the subject of Illegals and Citizenship..

      In sum, this legacy of feudalism -- which we today call birthright citizenship --- was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868.   It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizendship on the children of illegal aliens.   Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right.   Their allegiance should follow that of the parents during their minority.   Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American Law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance -- or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.

      Their is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S.. An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship.    The Wong Kim Ark decision, however, was based on the mistaken premise that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law system of birthright citizenship.   The majority opinion did not explain how 'subjects' were miraculously transformed into 'citizens' and within the common law.   Justice Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that "citizen' and 'subject' were convertible terms -- as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism.    Indeed, Chief Justice wrote a powerful dissent in the case arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration.

     The constitutional grounds for the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark are tendentious and it could easily be over-turned.   This would, of course, require a proper understanding of the foundations of American citizenship, and whether the current Supreme Court is capable of such is open to conjecture. But in any case, to say that children of 'legal' aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing;   after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S.   It is entirely different with 'illegal aliens', who are here without permission.   This repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment.

      We have seen that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment unanimously agreed that Indians were not "subject to he jurisdiction" of the U.S.   Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis.   Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes.    Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen.   This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U. S. and acceptance on the part of the individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S.   It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that childred born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are NOT subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more rquired now than it was in 1923.

So there you have it for this monday, with the final chapter to be blogged on Wednesday. Meantime, chin up, keep alert, and smile.     Cheers    CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Cont'd.......WHO is a Citizen????

2011-02-04T17:12:00.000-08:00

Hello and a great friday to you, too, plus a greater weekend.   Today we continue on the subject of ILLEGALS presented in the MOnthly Newsletter, IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College and written by Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino, CA.

TODAY IS ENTITLED "WHO IS A CITIZEN".......

       Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty.    After all, the founders of a new nation are not born citizens of the new nation they create.   Indeed, this is true aof all citizens of a new nation -- they are not born into it, but rather become citizens by law.

      Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship.   It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourth Amendment.   Here is the familiar language:   "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States wherein they reside".   Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S., and being subject fo the jurisdiction of the U.S.

      We have somehow come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to the jurisdiction.   But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this has been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendent, presumably they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are thereby citizens.

       Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation's geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate judiciary Committee, rost to support his colleague, arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction hereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States".     Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, , excludes not only Indians but "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, {or} who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."   Thus "subject to the jurisdiction" does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts.   It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.

       Consider as well that in 1868 , the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act.   This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship.   This piece of legisation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fouteenth Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as "a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."   Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatable with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship.    One member of the House expressed the general sense of the Congress when he proclaimed: "The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England.....is not at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy."    The common law established what was characterized as an "indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance," a feudal wholly at odds with republic government.

And there you have what so far is an explanation of you, you, and you received your right of citizenship, and I am not finished yet and y'all ought to be proud of this America, which is in imminent danger of disaster if the general public don't realize quicky that this real threat comes from the Muslim Brotherhod that is behind all this unrest in the middle east.   Make no mistake their ultimate goal is America.

Anyway, enjoy your weekend and do come back next week and I will continue to feed this blog with worthwhile information for you digestion.   Ta Ta     Cheers      CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? How about children born of illegals????

2011-02-02T12:21:00.000-08:00

Hello again, folks. For the next few blogs I am going to delve into the subject of Illegals and their children. Contents taken from the monthly Newsletter, Imprimis, published by Hillsdale College, Michigan. The article is entitled Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny., written by Edward Erler, Professor of Political science at California State University.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP --- THE policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship -- is a great magnet for illegal immigration.   Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system.   BUT this is simply NOT true.

      The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.    As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance," never using the terms citizen or citizenship.    The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from the feudal law.   It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude".   According to BAlckstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered."    Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.

     America's Founders rejected this doctrine.   The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good People of these Colonies...are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved".    According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as "high treason".     So the common law -- the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance -- could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship.    Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain.

         James wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: "Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects".    The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution.     Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed -- not the accident of birth.

And there you have it for today, and I will continue on Friday with "WHO IS A CITIZEN"?    Some interesting information is coming up you may not bve familiar with and if know gooding old  US of A is important to you, and you should if you visit here at all, which I appreciate very much if you do, then stay with me, great stuff ahead.     Cheers     CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? About North Korea, did you Know?

2011-01-31T09:12:00.000-08:00

Wow, and here it is another new week to enjoy and experience, hope you do and will, all to good, of course. Today will complete the North Korea presentation, and hope it provided some new insight for you on the Korea Peninsula situation. And to repeat, the contents herein are from the most recent monthly Newsletter published by Hillsdale College, and written by Ass't Professor Sung-yoon Lee of Tufts University.

If you will remember, we are up to the part where the United States had stopped Japan's aggression through China, and Korea and had advanced into Manchuria, when they were defeated by the USA at Pearl Harbor etc.,and the Allies had partitioned the Korean Peninsula at the 38th Parallel. And Now.......

      The United States, in control of defeated Japan and the southern half of liberated Korea, now emerged as the key shaper of geopolitics in Northeast Asia.   But after governing South Korea from 1945 to 1948, and despite lingering misgivings about North Korea intentions, the U.S. began to withdraw troops from the South.   By the summer of 1949, it had returned to a policy of benign neglect.    At this point Kim Il Sung, father of the current North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il -- took advantage of the power vacuum and launched an invasion of the South.    This attempt to unify the Korean Peninsula under communist control was thwarted by a multinational coalition led by the United States, and South Korea was saved.

      In the 57 years since the armistice, North Korea has time and again shown its willingness to take considerable risks to turn the strategic environment in its favor.   The sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean naval ship, in March of this year, and the bombing of a South Korean island on November 23, are but the latest in a long history of deadly attacks.    But today the North Korean regime faces its most serious internal political challenges in nearly 20 years;   severe economic stresses, the increasing infiltration of information, higher numbers of its citizens attempting to defect to the South, and the challenge of handing over dynastic power from a long-ruling father to an unproves son in his twenties.

       This uncertain situation presents a rare opportunity for policymakers in Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo to bring about changes in the North Korean regime and to ensure peace and stability in the region.    Engaging the North Korean people --rather than the regime -- by means of information operations and facilitating defections, while simultaneously constricting Pyongyang's cash flow, is best means to that end.    It's also important for Washington to hold quiet consultations with Beijing to prepare jointly for a unified Korea under Seoul's direction, a new polity that will be free, peaceful capitalist, pro U.S. and pro-China.

      In an Orwellian world, "war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength".    In the North Korean world, the past 57 years of defacto peace is war, a life of servitude to the state is freedom, and national strength is rooted in ignorance of the outside world.    Today, as trouble is once again brewing on the Korean Peninsula, we would do well to remember the noble resolve of those who fought back the North Korean invasion in 1950-53 and the precious gift they left behind: and extended period of peace and prosperous South Korea.    Those courageous soldiers taught us that deterrence is peace, freedom is not free, and that to remember the past is a mark of mational character and strength.

      The great and noble efforts of Americans in the Korean War, the legacy of a 60-year friendship between the U.S. and South Korea, and U.S. strategic interests should not now be sacrificed on the altar of diplomatic peace.    Now is rather the time for prudent and pragmatic peace.    Now is rather the time for prudent and pragmatic policymakers to pave the way for a permanent peace of the Korean Peninsula, and, in so doing, to pay the greatest honor possible to all those who served in a war -- often referred to by historians as "The Forgotten War" -- that is decidedly forgotten no more.

Thas' all folks, from me here in sunny and warming Bradenton, Fl., and I do seriously trust everyone's week will by, above, HAPPY.   Cheers   CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? About North Korea, did you Know?

2011-01-28T16:51:00.000-08:00

Hello friends, and a happy TGIF to you all. I continue with the second section about North Korea from yesterday, and of course it comes from the Newsletter IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College, and written by Sung-Yoon Lee, ass't professor from Tufts University.

     It is granted that it is possible a peace treaty might be conducive to reconsiliation between the two Koreas and stability in the region; but this will be the case only if it does not lead to calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea.   What is more likely is that such a treaty would cause all sides -- not only North koreans, but South Koreans and Americans, too -- to question the need for a continued U.S. presence in Korea.   And thiswould in turn advance a top priority on the North Korean state;   the complete and irreversible removal of US troops from South Korea.   Considering the size of North Korea's military and its stocks of both conventional and nuclear weapons, the results would likely be disastrous.

      The presence of US troops in South Korea has been and remains the greatest deterrent to North Korean adventurism and a disruption of the current and longstanding peace on the Korean peninsula.    And to repeat an important point:   the absence of a formal peace treaty no more threatens this peace than the absence of a post World War Two peace treaty between Moscow and Tokyo threatens the peace between Russia and Japan.

      But does Korea even matter, from America's strategic point of view?   Consider the lessons of four other wars in and around Korea in the 60-year period leadingup to l950;   the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95)m the First Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), the Second ino-Japanese War (1937-45), and the Pacific War (1941-45).    In each of these, Japan was the principal actor, driven by a desire to change the geopolitical setting in its favor.   And taken together, these earlier conflicts powerfully reinforce the lesson of the Korena War itself: a power vacuum in Korean War itself;   a power vacuum in Korea is an invitation to aggression.

      By defeating China in 1895, Japan won Taiwan as its first colony and effectively ended the centuries-old Chinese world order.   By defeating Russia in 1905, Japan won international recognition of its "paramount political, military and economic interests in Korea", as enshrined in the Treaty of Portsmouth.   By 1937, Japan was in full control of its Korean colony and prepared to utilize the Korean peninsula as a supply base and military platform for invading China.    Lacking strategic interests in Northeast Asia, the U.S. stood by as Japan gobbled up Korea and advanced into Manchuria.    But Japan's military successes peaked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1041, and it was defeated in August 1945.    By then, the geopolitical importance of Korea was not lost on the victorious allies, who paritioned the peninsula at the 38th Parallel .

That does it for this week. I will be some of you didn't know about Japan and it's wars with China and

Russia. Well now you can tie in your history before Pearl Harbor and why and how Japan got too big

for it's britches. Do you suppose history will repeat itself with, you know who?   And I don't mean

China. As always, time will tell.       See y'all monday.      Cheers      CJ

RELIGION or POLITICS ??? About North Korea, did you Know?

2011-01-27T10:27:00.000-08:00

Hi y'all, Sorry again, couldn't get this out yesterday, darn computer again. But then, I think it is fixed and in good shape again. Now, this blog today is about Peace in Korea and I believe your will learn some things you didn't know about N. Korea. We read about he situation there between North and South Korea, but not about pertinent history. Worth the read.

This also comes from the news letter, IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College, and written by Sung-Yoon Lee, assistant Professor of Interrnational politics at Fletcher School of Law at Tufts University.. So here goes. (This maybe be in three parts).

     We are often reminded that the Korean War ended not with a formal peace treaty, but rather iwth an armistice.   And indeed, that is an irrefutable fact.   But it is not true tht the absence of a formal peace treaty is an impediment to peace in Korea. The signing of such a treaty between the United States and North Korea today would not facilitate, let alone guarantee, genuine peace of denuclearization on the Koren peninsula.   To believe that it would can only be the result of a fundamental misreading of the North Korean regime, both in terms of its nature and of its strategic intent.

      It was on July 27, 1953, that the armistice bringing the Korean War to an end was signed.   The war ended without a clear victor and with the Korean peninsula divided more or less along the same lines as at the beginning of the war on June 25, 1950. Despite the lack of a final resolution, the armistice made possible a long peace in Northeast Asia and planted the seeds of South Korea's freedom and prosperity.

      In North Korea, on the other hand, July 27 has a different meaning.   The date is referred to as the day of "Victory in Fatherland Liberation War", and Pyongyang commemorates each year " the anniversary of the great victory of the Korean people in the Fatherland Liberation War."   North Korea considers it a reminder of the unfinished business of communizing the entire Korean peninsula -- or, in the words of Communist Part Charter, "the accomplishment of the revolutionary goals of national liberation and the people's democracy on the entire area of the country."   The war may have ended in 1953, but the North Korean revolution rages on.   This fact helps explain the fundamental geopolitical dynamic on the peninsula.

     In this light, consider Nort Korea's repeated demand for a peace treaty with the United States.   What explains its insistence on signing such a treaty with its vanquished foe?   The answer is self-evident to realize its goal of evicting the U.S. forces from South Korea. Ever since North Korea joined the World Health Organization in 1973 and opened a diplomatic mission in New York the following year, it has been proposing bilateral peace negotiations with Washington.

       Of course, this didn't stop it from sending assassins to kill South Korean President Park Chung Hee or kidnapping South Korean fishermen.   Why would a nation that claims to seek peace engage in such war-like activities?   The answer is that North Korea is not seeking peace, but rather a change in the military balance of power on the Korean peninsula.   In addition, North Korea regularly makes threats against the U.S., its ostensible future partner in peace.   WHY?    Because Pyongyang sees itself as the party wielding the carrots and sticks in order to cajole and coerce its adversaries, Washington and Seoul.   In other words, North Korea acts upon its own strategy.   It does not merely react to signals coming out of Washington or Seoul, no matter how "diplomatic" they may be.

This be part I of this series and I hope you are interested enought in the affairs, of the world and the good old USA, to get a handle on this rather peculiar situation in world aggressiona and diplomacy and learn more than you will read in the newspapers. Probably will continue this tomorrow seeing as how it is friday and my lateness. So do come back and visit agiain, I do so appreciate it. Cheers    CJ