st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

Atlas Shrugged

Bravo!

Today I am a happy man. Today I saw the film version of Atlas Shrugged and it was wonderful and true to the book except that the setting of the movie is in 2016.

The director was able to make the time shift in such a way that he was able to create the vision of Ayn Rand despite the fact the she wrote about a much earlier time.

He was able to create a believable scenario that the audience was perfectly willing to accept the need for railroads.

The sets were tremendous and the visual and special effects were utterly believable. The scene when the John Galt Line is on its inaugural run and you begin to see the bridge built with Rearden Steel is visually so overpowering that I’m sure I was not the only one in the theater that choked up at the sight of this magnificent vision shown from all angles. The shots from above on as the train approached the bridge, then the shot from below and several other angles was a display of mans magnificent ability to achieve greatness.

The theater was filled mostly with people over thirty who probably all have read the book several times in their lives. I can only hope that a younger audience will develop for this film, yet I fear that since young people don’t know any other times then progressive liberalism, they will have difficulty in appreciating this great film.

Now to the casting; it was simply perfect. The lead actors in Atlas Shrugged Part I, Taylor Shilling as Dagny Taggart and Grant Bowler as Henry Rearden were as great in their performances and true to their characters as could ever be hoped for. All the actors were terrific in their roles.

My hat is off to the courageous Producer, John Aglialoro and Director Paul Johansson who also performs in the role of John Galt.

In Part I we never see John Galt’s face and he appears only in a few scenes, but he is true to the John Galt of the book.

We can only hope that everyone involved in Part I will also be a part of the two sequels. The actors are set in our minds now and should not change.

Yes, I freely admit to be an admirer of Atlas Shrugged the book and now I am an admirer of the movie and all that participated in the making of this film.

I wish we didn’t have to wait a year for part II and two years for part III.

Fred Speckmann

commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

Today in an interview on fox News Channel, U.S. Coast Guard Admiral stated that one of the reasons that foreign vessels that can provide additional skimmers to gather the leaked oil from the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and impacting the Gulf States so dramatically, is the fact that the Jones Act prohibits foreign vessels.

The Jones Act specifically prohibits foreign vessels from sailing from one U.S. port to another. The purpose is to protect U.S. flagged vessels from competition by foreign flagged vessels. The argument to be made about this laws interference with free enterprise is for another day.

Admiral Allen indicated that waivers can be authorized but only for one ship at a time and only through very cumbersome bureaucratic system. This is simply unacceptable.

What is at stake here is the dramatic disaster occurring in the gulf states and the loss of wetlands, the income from the tourist industry and the loss of fishing resources to American businesses and their employees.

This law was never intended to block resources available from foreign countries in a disaster scenario such as we are facing now.

For the Obama administration to not execute an immediate executive order waiving this act is most irresponsible. At this point it is imperative that an appointment be made by President Obama that puts one person in charge representing the president. The governors of each affected state must be able to communicate with this individual instantly on a 24 hour basis and through this individual have access to the president.

Any and all equipment and ships must be made available to the states and BP in order to deal with this emergency. If BP is uncooperative in any fashion, then and only then should the U.S. government take complete charge of the cleanup effort. BP must answer to the U.S. via the individual placed in charge on behalf of the president.

As a second priority, an investigation needs to be made as to the actual cause of the accident in order to first of all find ways to prohibit any such event in the future. The last thing that needs to be done is to determine the ultimate responsibility on whether the cause was negligence or “an act of God.” Accidents happen and without question the financial responsibility is BP’s. However, demonizing the company and thereby causing irrational financial decisions of the stockholders is unwise though in the administrations view, politically profitable. BP is still a very profitable company and can remain so despite their financial liability.

For the President or members of Congress and the Cabinet to threaten and demonize the company can only result in further diminishing BP’s financial condition and ultimately leading to its bankruptcy. And if that happens, the U.S. taxpayer will be on the hook as always.

The priorities are; clean up payment of all liabilities, find the cause, assign ultimate responsibility.

It’s not really that hard, if the administrations focus were on solving problems, not how to spin it all in a political sense.

Fred Speckmann

commonsenseforamericans.webs.com

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:24.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; font-weight:bold; mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

Are American Bankers the Jews of 1938 Germany?

On November 9th and 10th, 1938 the German Nazi government under Adolph Hitler ordered the attack on the Jewish population of Germany and Austria and confiscated or destroyed their property.

Are there similarities between that occurrence and the Obama administration demonizing of the American Bankers?

Is the Obama administration planning to do the same thing? I don’t believe so at this time but denunciation of the Jewish population was only the beginning. The reason the Nazi’s used this particular tactic was that they needed a common enemy to focus the populations’ hatred on.

There is a similar tactic used today against the management of financial institutions. They make too much money. They don’t care about their customers. They’re only in profit for themselves. They are destroying the country.

Let’s examine who the real owners of American financial institutions are.

The majority of stock held in banks and Wall Street institutions are held by mutual and retirement funds. Those funds represent millions of private citizens. Only a small percentage is owned by the executives of financial institutions.

When the administration demonizes “Bankers and Wall Street,” they are in fact demonizing you, the public who are the majority owners. I will agree that in some cases it seems that management of these “Wall Street Firms” and the management of banks are being overpaid, especially when they are creating losses. What is not mentioned in the speeches given by the President and administration officials is that the people who receive what they claim are excessive compensation are contractually required bonuses for making a profit for their divisions.

Let us not forget that contracts between two parties are in fact property rights and property rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The only parties who have a right to dictate compensation are the stockholders of a corporation.

Even though the administration committed billions of dollars to “financial institution bailouts,” they may not change the terms of a contract retroactively. That can only be done legally by renegotiating a contract.

What is the purpose of these attacks upon management? Just like in Germany of the 1930’s it is to misdirect the true cause of the problems existing in the economy and targeting the management of financial institutions as being evil.

In reality the economy can only function if a streamlined financial system exists. The public deposits money in banks and invests in Wall Street in order to create a profit for themselves. Pursuing this self-interest provides the basic cash flow for an economy to grow. Banks collect money, pay interest to the saver and lends out the money to businesses and buyers of major products such as homes and automobiles. Without this system of financing, the economy could not grow.

We can find many faults with how the financial sector operates, but that is a part of the financial system. Those companies that operate within the rules of the capitalistic system will prosper, and those that do not will eventually go bankrupt. No bailouts and let true capitalism work.

Fred Speckmann

Sparks, Nevada

commonsenseforamericans.webs.com

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

A little sunshine in your life

The last few weeks included some of the most difficult moments that I have had in my life. Then I found myself wondering what has happened to the British singing sensation of 2009, Susan Boyle. As I searched the internet, I found Susan Boyle’s original performance on “Britain’s Got Talent.” If you missed that extraordinary performance, please go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk

If you need a ray of sunshine in your life, then this is the clip to see. As it did the first time I saw it, my heart soared with delight as I watched this plain looking woman of 47 years walk out on the stage, being looked at with derision by the audience and the judges as she explained that she wanted to be a professional singer.

Well, the rest is history as this wonderfully talented, plain woman set the judges and the audience on their heels and caused them to jump to their feet and applaud. The look on their faces during one of the most inspiring performances I have ever seen was pure ecstasy.

I have probably seen that performance dozens of times and yet, she brings tears to my eyes because she shows that triumph is possible for all of us at any age.

The secret to success is simply this; never ever give up on your dreams. If you truly believe, anything is possible in your life. On the day that I saw her original performance and today when I felt a little down, I found that the soaring spirit of Susan Boyles’ voice can make the sun shin brightly on us all.

Fred Speckmann

commonsenseforamericans.webs.com

<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

On a recent Wednesday evening I had the opportunity to meet a very interesting man in a hotel in Reno, Nevada,  He was sitting next to a man with the same short military style haircut and I commented that they looked like brothers.  One man answered that he got his haircut in Detroit and the other stated that he got his cut in Baghdad.

That got my attention.  It turned out, they just happened to sit next to each other.  After continuing our conversation I discovered that Tim Ramirez is a Staff Sergeant in the California National Guard and was in Reno on leave with his wife.  He was enjoying a drink and our conversation flowed.  Being a Vietnam era veteran myself I was interested in the common soldiers opinions about our present situation in Iraq.

We agreed to meet the next day for breakfast along with his wife to give me the opportunity to interview him about his time in Iraq.  He was scheduled to return to Iraq in just a few days hence.

Staff Sergeant Ramirez, 43 had joined the California National Guard after his original enlistment in the regular Army had expired.  The one thing that exuded from his demeanor was that he is a patriot above all else.  his grandparents are from Guatemala and his other ancestor are from Russia and managed to escape the Soviet Revolution by fleeing to China shortly after the revolution.  he struck me as a man who understood history and both as a personal interest and as it affects the worlds situation today.

He is assigned to a Military Police company that supports our troops in their mission of training Iraqi police.  he told me about the the many difficulties that both our troops and the Iraqi police recruits endure.  They are looked upon as targets for the terrorists and are exposed to constant threats and worries about their families. The interpreters that are needed to help in the communications are also under constant threat.  he relayed a recent event where a Iraqi born, but resident of the U.S. went outside the secure compound and was kidnapped.  When I asked what happened to him, the answer was as I expected.  We don’t know, we never heard from him again.

There are many aspects of the regular soldiers life in Iraq that we never hear about.  As the sergeant stated to me, although in many ways the armies training is no longer what it was 20 years ago, the results are that our troops understand the mission to be difficult but meet their mission with extreme competence and a positive morale despite the politics that are involved.

When I asked him about the support in general, he paused to think about his answer.  I could only read between the lines when he stated that there is sufficient support.  My personal interpretation is that he and his fellow troops would be happy if the support was a little stronger, but that no matter, their mission would be completed.

When we spoke about the Iraqi nationals that he has had contact with, he stated that for the most part they were friendly.  This of course is in Baghdad itself where the results of our mission are more visible than in the countryside.  He reminded me that during the Iraqi election a few weeks ago, there were at least 50 bombings of various sized that very day.  The danger is still everywhere and the fanatic terrorists will continue to be a problem.  As to his views on the future, he was very cautious in his opinion.

It seems clear to me that much progress has been made these past years since we entered Baghdad, but much is left to be done.  The feeling I got from our conversation is that though he and his fellow troops will be happy to leave Iraq, they also would like to leave the job finished.

While we were talking about these events, his wife quietly followed the conversation without comment and it seemed that though I’m sure she is accepting of her husbands career, she would much rather have him home sooner than later.  She represents so many wives who quietly accept their husbands danger and are never remembered enough.  They support and love their husbands and in some cases husbands remain at home and the wives go to a war zone and face daily danger.  Let us not forget that they too are brave.  We can never support the American soldier enough.  Whether they are in a front line combat position or are supportive in their duties, they are always in danger and deserve our respect.  Tim will be back in Baghdad next week and will do his duty as all those that have joined our military will do.  These are our patriots that know their duty and never hesitate to perform that duty to the best of their abilities despite personal risk and their concerns over their families.  Let us never forget and be thankful to these patriots.

Thank you men and women of our military services.

Semper Fidelis

Fred Speckmann

775-297-2612

commonsenseforamericans.webs.com

What did Glenn Beck really say at CPAC?

This morning’s many commentaries on Glenn Beck’s CPAC speech were very confusing. Did they all hear the same speech?

What I heard was the following. An impassioned plea for the republican party to stop what they have been doing and take time to reflect and really analyze their actions in the years since the Reagan presidency.

In their speeches they all mention their admiration for President Reagan and what he stood for, yet their actions seldom show that they are in fact true to his philosophies.

Once they get elected and arrive in Washington DC, they drink the water that seems to be infected with spend and tax viruses. Glenn Beck was right in his statement at CPAC when he said, “One party says it will tax and spend. The other party says it won’t tax and will spend.”

Many comments have been made that Beck advocates a third party movement, nothing is further from the truth. What he is in fact saying is that the Republican Party must make a stand against Progressivism and make it now, before it’s too late.

He is advocating for true Conservatives to influence the party and support true Conservatives within the party.

Yes, he has on occasion said, maybe that means a third party. But that is a reflection that republicans then could join that rejuvenated Conservative version of the old Republican Party.

We can avoid such a temporary turmoil in the Republican Party by recognizing the true Conservatives such as Rubio in Florida, DeMint in South Carolina and many others that are bubbling up via the Tea Party movement and other Conservative organizations. Are all those potential Conservative candidates going to be true to their campaign speeches, probably not? We do however have plenty of evidence about many Republican Congressmen and women who have proven their inability to be real Conservatives.

Fred Speckmann

commonsenseforamericans.webs.com

Why do Liberals fear Sarah Palin?

Let me count the ways. She has common sense. Who was the last politician that you remember that had that quality?

She can speak on her feet. Yes, we all remember the fuss that was raised by the liberals for her Katie Couric interview that was proclaimed to show Sarah Palin’s interview. Not ready for prime time I believe was one of the terms used to describe her.

In fact, I too would have reacted in the manner she did, the question was so absurd that it momentarily stopped Sarah from being able to respond. The question was simply too stupid to be taken seriously.

She has a sense of humor that comes through mostly when she responds to the ridiculous. And there are many examples of the ridiculous sound bites that come out of Washington.

To us conservatives, what are the qualities we admire about Sarah Palin? Her real life experiences in the world of the ordinary men and women that provide the real backbone of this great country. Her experiences as a partner with her husband in the real business world. The business world that is not a multi billion dollar enterprise, but the world where on a Friday afternoon she had to hand out paychecks to her employees and being close enough to understanding what that is like. To balance her expenditures with a flow of income that may not allow her to have a lot left over. The possible necessity of deciding that she will have to put her families needs aside and make sure there’s enough money to make payroll, not to mention meeting the giant tax burden that operating a small business demands.

What politician can you point to that has experienced those kinds of problems? Not many, I’m sure.

Those are just a few reasons to fear Sarah Palin if you’re a liberal.

She speaks the language of the people. She is every woman in every man in this country that uses common sense. The liberals simply have no one that can compete, so their only possible course to defeat her is to disparage her. They’re not even able to understand the more they attack her the stronger she becomes.

Fred Speckmann

Commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

Are American Bankers the Jews of 1938 Germany?

On November 9th and 10th, 1938 the German Nazi government under Adolph Hitler ordered the attack on the Jewish population of Germany and Austria and confiscated or destroyed their property.

Are there similarities between that occurrence and the Obama administration demonizing of the American Bankers?

Is the Obama administration planning to do the same thing? I don’t believe so at this time but denunciation of the Jewish population was only the beginning. The reason the Nazi’s used this particular tactic was that they needed a common enemy to focus the populations’ hatred on.

There is a similar tactic used today against the management of financial institutions. They make too much money. They don’t care about their customers. They’re only in profit for themselves. They are destroying the country.

Let’s examine who the real owners of American financial institutions are.

The majority of stock held in banks and Wall Street institutions are held by mutual and retirement funds. Those funds represent millions of private citizens. Only a small percentage is owned by the executives of financial institutions.

When the administration demonizes “Bankers and Wall Street,” they are in fact demonizing you, the public who are the majority owners. I will agree that in some cases it seems that management of these “Wall Street Firms” and the management of banks are being overpaid, especially when they are creating losses. What is not mentioned in the speeches given by the President and administration officials is that the people who receive what they claim are excessive compensation are contractually required bonuses for making a profit for their divisions.

Let us not forget that contracts between two parties are in fact property rights and property rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The only parties who have a right to dictate compensation are the stockholders of a corporation.

Even though the administration committed billions of dollars to “financial institution bailouts,” they may not change the terms of a contract retroactively. That can only be done legally by renegotiating a contract.

What is the purpose of these attacks upon management? Just like in Germany of the 1930’s it is to misdirect the true cause of the problems existing in the economy and targeting the management of financial institutions as being evil.

In reality the economy can only function if a streamlined financial system exists. The public deposits money in banks and invests in Wall Street in order to create a profit for themselves. Pursuing this self-interest provides the basic cash flow for an economy to grow. Banks collect money, pay interest to the saver and lends out the money to businesses and buyers of major products such as homes and automobiles. Without this system of financing, the economy could not grow.

We can find many faults with how the financial sector operates, but that is a part of the financial system. Those companies that operate within the rules of the capitalistic system will prosper, and those that do not will eventually go bankrupt. No bailouts and let true capitalism work.

Fred Speckmann

Sparks, Nevada

775-622-8198