Unlikely Saviors of Capitalism and the Nation

Tonight Washington State Senatorial candidates Pattie Murray (D) and Dino Rossi (R) debated. Mr. Rossi has a record in the Washington State Legislature of cost cutting to balance the budget. Senator Murray has a voting record in the US Senate making her the most liberal member of that body. She is running away from that record to a certain extent while also reminding voters of government money that she brought to the state. Dino reminded us of the practice in congress that our representatives use to get support for spending in their state. They vote for projects in other states in exchange. Dino Rossi is no RINO (Republican in Name only), but neither is he a Tea Partier. He seemed to be lack-luster in his early TV spots denouncing the Obama policies. He seems to be only half-heartedly against Cap-and-Trade, if he is against it at all. Nevertheless, his vote will be 90% conservative as apposed to Murray's 99% in favor of BHO and Majority Leader Harry Reid's agenda. Several other House and Senate races involve similar match ups. The Republicans and the nation need to win a majority of those races.

The conservative view is that economic difficulties stem from government intervention in the economy. Rossi gives this view lip service. Senator Murray does not seem to even understand the concept. Our current national economic problems were caused not only by decades of government actions but specifically by laws requiring banks to loan to bad credit risks. Because Freddy and Fanny were buying most of these loans from the banks, the banks were not too worried. The government was implicitly promising a bail-out if needed, and it was needed. All kinds of other bail-outs and government 'stimulus' spending followed. Those government actions are what is causing the current economic slow-down. It will turn into economic collapse unless we change course immediately.

BHO and his allies in congress have taken over the domestic auto industry, except for Ford Motor Company. They have taken over the biggest insurance company directly, and through the health care law, have taken over all of the health insurance industry. They have directly taken over many banks and investment companies and through the Wall Street 'Reform' bill, have effectively taken over all of the rest of that industry. In the Health Care bill there were provisions to take over more aspects of the economy, student loans, for instance. The laws granting bail-outs to state teachers and other government employees, have taken more control from the states over these employees. Many, many, laws and obscure provisions hidden in the massive Wall Street and Health Care monstrosities, set up new government agencies to control the people even more. Now, with Cap-and-Trade, they plan on controlling energy production, use, and distribution. Those industries are already highly regulated. To help them gain and keep control over the people, they want even more control over the Internet and talk radio. Since they already have control of the mainstream TV and print media, they will gain virtual complete say over what we, the people, are told to believe.

These massive government actions, most of which are for political not economic purposed, will not help the economy. In fact they are causing many problems that continue to get worse. As stated here and elsewhere, prices must lower and bankrupt concerns must be liquidated for markets to return to normal functioning. That is not happening. Government is creating money and debt at breakneck speed to shore-up housing prices, wages, and many industries (such as banking). This is postponing the inevitable and making the inevitable worse. Even if Republicans were to gain control in congress, there would likely be a long uphill climb.

Regarding Senate races, after the debacle of Reid's performance in his debate with Sharon Angle today, his chances of retaining his seat declined dramatically.

Internet Unprotected from Spies: We Need Obama Ware Now

Regarding the arrests recently announced of individuals in a Russian spy ring, I was surprised to hear so many average Americans question why Russia needs to spy on the USA. Aside from being a naïve question in a world that has lately become so unstable, Russia (at least the Soviet Union) has never needed much of a reason. They have inquiring minds. Being nearly obsessed with current domestic political activities, my first response was that the Russians had forgotten how to do Communism so they were here to learn how to reinstate it back home.

To answer a few of the basic factual questions, consult the NY Times article from June 30, 2010, at:

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/russian_spy_ring_2010/index.html


This article states among other things:


"June 27, 2010, 10 people in Yonkers, Boston and northern Virginia were arrested and accused of being part of a Russian espionage ring, living under false names and deep cover ... scheme to penetrate ... American "policy making circles."
… identity borrowed from a dead Canadian, forged passports, messages sent by shortwave burst transmission or in invisible ink. A money cache
… cutting-edge gadgetry, deep knowledge of American culture and meticulously constructed cover stories.
…collect routine political gossip and policy talk...
… The court documents detailed what the authorities called the "Illegals Program," … to plant Russian spies in the United States to gather information and recruit more agents.
… used cyber-age technology, according to the charges ... embedded coded texts in ordinary-looking images posted on the Internet, and they communicated by having two agents pass casually with laptops containing special software flashed messages between them.
…They were directed to gather information on nuclear weapons, American policy toward Iran, C.I.A. leadership, Congressional politics and many other topics, according to prosecutors...
… agents often spend years just developing a fake life story, known in Russian as a "legend," ... the K.G.B. would often keep an agent in place abroad for years or even decades before he or she was able to gather useful information."


This should pretty much explain things, at least as well as we will ever know.

Russia has long been known for setting up “illegal," i.e. without diplomatic cover, spies and networks around the world, even in friendly countries, for future contingencies. A “legend” is like a cover story but more in-depth and for long term purposes. It is a complete false identity. A cover story is more of a task or mission oriented fake motive for being somewhere or doing something. These illegals may have no definite purpose. They might be placed where they would have access to financial executives, scientists, or military officers. Sometimes they might recruit agents with special access to confidential information. Sometimes they only keep taps on things. Setting up secret contacts and communications within the network are important steps because in emergencies or hostilities they need to be ready. There also are “agents of influence” who have media, industry, government, or other influential positions where they can promote US domestic policies helpful to their foreign masters. (Of course the British, French, US, Chinese, and everyone else does this to a certain extent.) Source of my information: the novels of John Le Carré (See his personal web cite for his readings and spy info.)

Returning to current domestic political shenanigans, my question is why has the government taken action now? Why have they “rolled up” this network, which the NY Times says has been in place for over ten years? References to the internet and “laptops with special software,” make me wonder if this is not part of the push for government control of the internet. It's such a threat, you know what they will be saying: "Look, This is unacceptable ... unsustainable .. a security crisis... With these simple security precautions in place, I will make you safe...blah, blah, blah."

We’ll just wait and see.

Neutrality, Thy Name is Government?

One of the biggest area newspaper, The Seattle Times, calls for Government control over internet providers to provide neutrality. We are not stupid. If an internet provider’s service is lacking, there are dozens more we can change to. One result of government regulation is barriers to entry. When government imposes complicated regulations, such as 3,000 page laws, only the largest firms can comply. Government complications impose costs and eventually require court interpretations, law suits, and hundreds and hundreds of attorneys. Furthermore, if government enforcement of regulation would be so neutral, why did the Democrats always block President Bush’s nominees for federal judges? Why did the Democrats raise holy hell when president Bush fired a few federal attorney’s who were part of his own executive branch? Why are the Democrats constantly attacking (and implicitly call for regulation of) news media that are antagonistic to their aims? Why did the Democrats have a cow over Patriot Act provisions to wire tap calls from Islamic countries but now use the Patriot Act provisions to monitor domestic dissenters to their policies? Why should we trust government regarding regulation of the internet?