Obama and Hillary...

... have any other two alleged leaders had less experience
leading between them?

Chicago Sunday 10 February 2013

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan presents a thotful
and well written column “So God Made a Fawner”
[Declarations Saturday 9 February,] accompanied by an
outstanding color foto of our current President and
recently retired Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

It seems odd that no mention is made of what in either's
career experience would lead to such high positions. The
President was elected a Senator for one term, but spent the
last half of that running for president. Beyond that his most
significant political experience was 6 years sitting at a little
desk in the Illinois State Senate waiting for his party leader
to come around to tell him how to vote on the next question.
If he had been non-black, he would have needed to buy his
own bus ticket to Iowa in 2007, and been lucky to be met at
the station by his grandmother.

After Mrs. Clinton graduated with honors from a top school,
her next high point was being photographed glaring at
President Nixon in the Watergate hearings. Her biggest
accomplishment was meeting, and subsequently marrying, a
brilliant, hard working politician. During his two terms as
President, she ably traveled around the world having tea with
wives of other international leaders.  She is said to be a lawyer,
but did she ever practice in a state where her husband was not
attorney general? If she had not nailed Bubah Clinton at Yale,
she would be checkinbg out books at the Park Ridge IL public
library,

Contrast those two curriculum vitaes with those of President
Reagan, elected and reelected to two terms as Governor of the
most populous state in the Union, or George W Bush, elected
as governor of the second largest state, reelected to a second
term by two to one margin.



Arnold H Nelson

5056 North Marine Drive  Chicago 60640
773-677-3010   ah_nelson@yahoo.com

Chicago Tribune: Saturday USPS mail delivery?

Chicago AM Thursday 8 February 2013

Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune

Since the Post Office's founding by Benjamin Franklin 238
years ago (1775) , its backbone has been delivering personal
letters between individuals.  This application was taken over
100% by internet email in 1988.  The Post Office should have
recognized this, and immediately established USPS email.
Once Yahoo and Gmail got started, the USPS lost its number
one product.

Arnold H Nelson

Six great articles...

...in one edition of the Wall Street Journal:

Chicago AM Wednesday 6 February 2013

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

Long time WSJ subscribing neighbors have been passing it on
to me every AM for over 5 years.  Receipt is  high point of my
day. For who knows why I quickly scanned the Thursday 24
January 2013 edition, then put it down, picked it up again
early this AM and found… six absolutely knockout articles:
1) Chuck Hagel's Unsettling History, 2) The Romney Care
Bill Comes Due, 3) Hillary Pitches a Benghazi Shutout,
4) Climate-Change Misdirection, 5) Even for Minnesota,
it's cold, and 6) The British Assault on an Island Off
Argentina Is for the Birds.

Every day is a good day to read WSJ, but these six articles were absolutely astounding!  Thanks so much.

Arnold H Nelson   ah_nelson@yahoo.com

AP: Global warming threatens wolverines?!?!?

Mathew Brown c/o Associated Press

Mr. Brown:

Your well written article “Warming imperils wolverines”
[APNewsBreak 0900 Friday 1 February] describes “The
tenacious wolverine... is being added to the list of species
threatened by climate change....”

You make no mention of  mathematical models, surprising
since they are the backbone of climate change claims.  A
model can be used to demonstrate  the pathetically small
amount of data available to back up these claims:  projecting
the 4.5 billion year age of the planet on to something easier to
comprehend,  an 80-year human lifetime.  Such a model
shows a single year of earth time equivalent to 0.562 seconds
of that 80-year lifespan.  In this model humans first appeared
on earth 39 days ago. They had no idea of measuring
temperature before Galileo's 1593 thermometer invention,
4 minutes ago to our geezer. Discovery of carbon dioxide in
1630? 3 minutes 30 seconds ago.

Applying this model to the landmark given in your article:
“...wolverines were wiped out across the Lower 48 by the
1930s....”  43 seconds in the model.

If a doctor takes an 80-year-old's blood pressure and gets
120/80, five minutes later does it again and gets 124/76, does
she call an ambulance?

Arnold H Nelson

5056 North Marine Drive  Chicago 60640
773-677-3010   ah_nelson@yahoo.com

Chicago PM Wednesday 16 January 2013

Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune  

Gentlepeople:

The Chicago Tribune article “2012 among hottest on record,
US Agencies find” [Wednesday 16 January] opens “The
average global temperature in 2012 was among the 10 hottest
since official record keeping began in 1880...” then proceeds
to demonstrate this  with statements: “Last year’s average
global temperature was about 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit, or
about 1.0 degree Fahrenheit warmer than the mid-20th century
baseline” and  “2012 was the 36th year in a row that the global
average temperature was above the 20th century mean of 57
degrees Fahrenheit,” even quoting a NASA climatologist:
“One more year of numbers isn't in itself significant... What
matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that
decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is
warming.”

What matters is the pathetically small amount of data available
 to back up these claims.  This can be demonstrated by using
a mathematical model projecting the 4.5 billion year age of the
planet on to something easier to comprehend: an 80-year
human lifetime.  Such a model  shows a single year of earth
time equivalent to 0.562 seconds of that 80-year lifespan.  In
this model humans first appeared on earth 39 days ago. They
had no idea of measuring temperature before Galileo's 1593
thermometer invention, 4 minutes ago to our geezer. Discovery
of carbon dioxide in 1630? 3 minutes 30 seconds ago.

Applying this model to some of the landmarks given in the
article: that 'official record keeping' that began in 1880, began
74 seconds ago in the model, and that ”36th year in a row that
the global average temperature was above the 20th century
mean” is the 19th second in a row in the model.

If a doctor takes an 80-year-old's blood pressure and gets
120/80, five minutes later does it again and gets 124/76. does
she call an ambulance?

Arnold H Nelson

 ah_nelson@yahoo.com

To Matt Drudge on RedvsBlue...

Drudge, you too?!? Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:10 AM
From: "Arnold Nelson"   To: "Matt Drudge"

Mr Drudge:

Your Sunday 13 January 1040 am page head showing
Democrat states as blue and Republican states as read is
grotesque.

Colors have intrinsic meanings:  Red is Red Russia,
revolution, Communism – blue is the  winners of the US
Civil war.

So why does Drudge pick that color choice?  Because ever
since 1994 when the Republicans took  Congress back from
the Democrats for the first time in 40 years, an obscure,  every
Democrat newspaper  printed a similar map, and of course
every other Democrat leaning organization fell in line?

Why does the nation's leading news supplier fall in lock step
behind a newspaper best known for having street vendor
boxes that try to look like TV sets?

If Drudge were to follow basic human instincts and represent
Republicans as Blue and Democrats as Red, would anyone
be confused?  The Democrats would be outraged!  Who cares?

Arnold H Nelson

Exchange w/ WSJ James Taranto on payroll taxes

Sunday, September 23, 2012 7:05 PM Subject: Who pays
'payroll' taxes?

From: Arnold Nelson Sent: to: Wall Street Journal, Best of
the Web today:

In your  Tuesday 18 September 2012 column you refer to
“...60% of such households paid federal payroll taxes...” and
“someone who paid payroll taxes....”

The Statistical Abstract of the United States says that 73% of
all the taxes (including income, socsec, and  medicare) the
federal government collects comes from wages withheld by
employers - the employers write the actual checks on their
bank accounts, not the employees.  Sure, the employer
occasionally reminds the employees in writing that if they
weren't forced to do this under jail threat, they would have
given the money to the employee.

Why don't a majority of the House of reps, 60 Senators, and
the President change US Tax code from 'every employer
making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon
such wages a tax...' to 'every employer making payment of
wages shall pay all wages to the employee....' The employer
would still calculates the tax, including a note to the
employee: "Here is what the feds are expecting you personally
to remit in 30 days."

This would be difficult to do, but returning the responsibility
of writing monthly checks to fund the government to the
90% of voters who are wage earners would encourage much
more careful selection of who they vote to Congress.

Arnold H Nelson

====================================

Mon, 9/24/12, 9:38AM James Taranto, wrote:


I like the idea for the same reason you do, but there is a
downside: A lot more taxes would end up going unpaid.
Making up the difference would require either higher taxes
on those who do pay or a bigger IRS.

====================================

Monday 24 September 2012 12:36PM
From: Arnold Nelson Sent: To: Taranto, James  Subject:
RE: Who pays 'payroll' taxes?

Mr Taranto, thanks so much for your response, and
especially for admitting that my proposition has merit.

I did warn that it would be 'difficult', and certainly the reason
they thot up the present scheme in 1937, and continued it in
1943 w/ the current tax payment act.

The solution:  TV!  That is, you put 26 plastic balls in a big
desk top cage, each w/ a letter of the alphabet on it. Then once
a quarter you have a big TV show w/ a neat looking chick
spinning the ball, then picking a single ball - everyone w/ last
names starting the ball letter must start paying the new way,
or... the same result that forces the employers to
participate now:  they go to jail!  In 7 years it's fixed!!

If we don't do something, how long can we continue w/ the
entire population continuously screaming: "I paid in! I
deserve a monthly check!! I deserve medicare!!!

Arn Nelson in Chicago

PS Thanks again for the response.  It's a real honor!  You
must get as much email as Rush Limbaugh.

========================================

From: Taranto, James Subject: RE: Who pays 'payroll' taxes?

To: "'Arnold Nelson'" Monday  8:35 PM  24 September  2012

The central question is not how you phase it in but how you
enforce it, which you seem to treat as an afterthought: “the
same result that forces the employers to participate now:
they go to jail!”

Employers are fewer in number than taxpayers, and they have
a greater incentive to comply with the law. It’s expensive to
put people on trial and to maintain them in prison. To make
the threat of punishment credible, it would take a dramatic,
perhaps wholly impracticable, expansion of the IRS.

==========================================

Tuesday 9:03 AM 24 September 2012
"Who pays 'payroll' taxes?"

From: Arnold Nelson To: "JamesTaranto"

You make a good point - but no answer to the question:

"If we don't do something, how long can we continue w/ the
entire population continuously screaming: "I paid in! I
deserve a monthly check!! I deserve medicare!!!"

And we can add to that, continuing to elect half wits to the
national legislature.

What's to stop us from becoming another Soviet Russia or
North korea?

Arn Nelson

=================================


RE: Who pays 'payroll' taxes? Tues 25 Sept 2012 9:09AM
From: "Taranto, James"  To: "'Arnold Nelson'"

If taxpayers were actually writing a check to the government
every month, that would only accentuate their feeling if
having “paid in” and deserving something back in return.

========================================

RE: Who pays 'payroll' taxes?  Tues 25 Sept 2012 11:14 AM

From:  "Arnold Nelson"   To:  "JamesTaranto"

JT: "If taxpayers were actually writing a check to the
government every month, that would only accentuate their
feeling if having “paid in” and deserving something back in
return."

Well sure, when someone pays for something, they expect
some return.

As of now, they are NOT paying in, but led to believe they
'deserve' a return.

Another point about the employers - they are sending in hefty
checks, but they're not taking it from their children's college
funds, for sure.  They handle it like any other business
expense - add it to the cost of their product, converting the
alleged SocSec/Medicare 'contributions' to a national
sales tax.

I guess it looks harmless to some. but it's a lie, and I think
when the national government is lying to the public it is a
serious problem.

Also, the closest SocSec gets to being Constitutional is
Fleming v. Nestor 1961: "….The noncontractual interest of
an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be
soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose
right to benefits are based on his contractual premium
payments."

I did a  quick search of the Constitution for medical sounding
words, and came up with nothing.

Arnold  Nelson