Draiman says that voters deserve to hear from all Mayoral candidates on the ballot

Draiman says that voters deserve to hear from all Mayoral candidates on the ballot

It is anti democratic to ignore candidates who have earned their place to be on the ballot.

In the current political mood and the growing apathy by voters it is imperative that every candidate who is officially on the ballot to be heard by the public.

Ignoring these candidates only reinforces to the voting public that money and not the most qualified candidate is given a chance to run for office with a level playing field.

The deck is stacked against a candidate who is not willing to be swayed by money and political influence. This is a sad day for our Democracy.

The Media and the various organizations who host a candidate forum – debate have a great responsibility to present unbiased information to the public, of all the candidates that appear on the ballot with a level playing field.

To ignore some candidates is a distortion of our Democratic oath and they are practicing the very same unacceptable behavior that they are trying to correct in today’s political scene.

By ignoring candidates who are on the ballot the voters are deprived of critical information and opinions of all the candidates on the ballot. It is a disservice to the community at large.

Angelenos have the right to an open and balanced election process resting on the values of our democracy, which is open to all candidates.

We have to show to the public how real democracy at work – by presenting all the candidates, not just the select few.

The right to vote is the right that protects all other rights. That includes all official candidates.

YJ Draiman

http://draimanformayor2013.com

Los Angeles Election Commission certifies Yehuda YJ Draiman as a Mayoral Candidate in the March 5, 2013 Elections.

Los Angeles Election Commission certifies Yehuda YJ Draiman as a Mayoral Candidate in the March 5, 2013 Elections.

 News Bulletin - Draiman News Agency - Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2012 YJ Draiman is certified as a Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles by LA’s Election Commission.

http://yjdraiman.org

 

Out of business moved to China – YJ Draiman

 

 

Goods produced in China are inferior to American made goods.

 

Most goods made in China have to be purchased 3 to 4 times to last as long as American goods. So, you think you are saving money by buying Chinese made goods, the answer is no.

 

As a consumer you should insist on products made in the USA, it is better quality, it retains and creates jobs in the U.S. while keeping the economy going and produces revenues for the government which enables them to provide services to its population.

 

Producing goods and services in the U.S. is Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth.

 

Many foreigners make millions exporting products from China to the USA. An American businessman was trying to export products from the USA to China.

He found it impossible. And this is why our country the USA is failing. It is because we allow this unfairness. Many Americans are tired of paying for the infrastructure so the Chinese can sell their wares virtually tax free in the USA and Americans are paying for the roads and everything else to make that possible.

 

 

The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.”

 

“Those who control the energy supply control whole continents”.

 

YJ Draiman

http://yjdraiman.org

 

How to expedite America's economic recovery – YJ Draiman r1

 

The U.S. and the city of Los Angeles economy could expedite its economic revival by accelerating its hydrocarbon exploration and development. A national policy to enhance the development of hydrocarbon will turn the U.S. into a net exporter of hydrocarbon products. The U.S. must also build additional refining capacity at strategic locations in the U.S. to alleviate fuel shortages and increase its export of refined fuel and natural gas. Allocating a percentage of the revenues for the further development of renewable energy, energy efficiency and the development of water resources and efficiencies, including rainwater harvesting and grey water utilization etc. will further fuel Americas economic revival.

 

“Those who control the energy supply control whole continents”.

 

“Those who control the water sources control life”

 

Another avenue to boost the U.S. economy would be to initiate a program for Made in America products. This would require certain tax benefits to the manufacturer of products in America. Any unemployed American, who returns to the workforce, reduces the dependency for financial and social support by the government. Thus it turns the worker into a revenue generator for the government, while the employee’s earning are spent on goods and services which boosts the economy further.

 

The city of Los Angeles must make it easy for businesses to thrive. This will create employment and increase revenues to the government and it will create the multiplier effect.

 

Multiplier effect definition:
An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries and the housing industry which employs builders, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc.

 

Increasing bureaucracy, taxes and fees depresses the economy, reduces business development, which in turn reduces consumer spending and as a result reduces revenues to the government.

 

YJ Draiman

http://yjdraimanformayor.org

http://energysavers777.com/

"Do not punish the masses for the sins of the few"

"Do not punish the masses for the sins of the few"

This applies to any and all rights and privileges stated in the Constitution of the United States.

For example “The Right to Bear and Keep Arms”. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. There are many more.

Nowhere does the Constitution give the President or the Congress the power to federalize state crimes or enact gun control legislation -- not even in a national emergency. One reads the Constitution in vain for such a delegation of authority by "We, the People" through the several states. Very instructive on this point are the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were written by Thomas Jefferson.

The federal government in 1798 enacted a law making it illegal to criticize a federal official (the Sedition Act). Kentucky and Virginia passed resolutions declaring that the national law was unenforceable in their states.
 These are among the arguments that Jefferson made in the Kentucky resolutions:
...whensoever’s the general government assumes un-delegated powers, its acts are un-authoritative, void, and of no force: ...that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself;...each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
Jefferson went on to spell out that the only powers to punish crime delegated to the federal government were 1) treason, 2) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, 3) piracies and 4) offenses against the law of nations. In this context, Jefferson cited the Tenth Amendment as providing a limit to any expansion of authority for punishing crime by the federal government. He quoted it verbatim in the Kentucky resolutions: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Anyone who has observed children will recognize that, ironically, they often demonstrate a more stringent and uncompromising sense of justice than the adults around them. A small child who must divide a piece of cake, for example, will be excruciatingly precise in cutting it lest the "chooser" glom on to a larger slice. Whether the issue is whose turn it is to clear the dishes, take out the trash, or who broke that lamp, young people appeal to an almost innate sense of propriety in demanding they be treated fairly and equitably.

This tendency to rigor is perhaps even more evident when parents must mete out punishments and rewards. To be falsely penalized for something they did not do will stir up the loudest and shrillest of complaints among the innocent offspring.

Too many adults, unfortunately, mildly, meekly, and silently accept such collectivist justice when dealing with social and political issues.

The essence of a moral view of justice entails a recognition that only individuals can be held accountable for the right and wrong they do. Because each of us possesses free will and, thus, the capacity to make choices among alternatives, when we act upon our best (or sometimes worst) judgment, we and we alone are who should reap the benefits of selecting wisely and appropriately...and we and we alone should be the ones to suffer the negative consequences of picking hastily, foolishly, or ignorantly.

If good and evil are to mean anything, our moral autonomy as beings with the capacity for rational behavior must be acknowledged and accepted. Any other basis for determining who is responsible for destructive or constructive outcomes leads to the kind of schizophrenic legal and political realm nipping at our heels today.

This individualistic conception of justice did not always hold sway. Indeed, collectivistic guilt has a long history. In Christian theology, we are all guilty of sin because of the behavior of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Throughout the past, whole families -- sometimes entire cities -- were held responsible for what fathers or kings might have done. The average citizen of ancient Carthage would have had little influence on the policies of his leaders. Nevertheless, he paid the price of Rome's disfavor when his home was razed and the ground salted.

Our Founding Fathers recognized the inherent injustice in accepting the doctrine of collective guilt, i.e., visiting unto the sons the sins of the father. Article III of the Constitution says that "no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood." In other words, the family of a traitor cannot be punished simply because the members are related to the perpetrator.

The bulk of the legal code under which we labor today, however, is rife with violations of this principle. The general collectivization of our culture in the Twentieth Century permeates every crack and crevice of our relationship with the law. Incoherently, our politicians hold individual citizens blameless for many of the negative conditions in their lives (e.g., being poor, homeless, addicted to drugs, sexual promiscuous, or abysmally ignorant) while pointing a narrow finger at us all. "Society" does not provide enough resources (i.e., money) or understanding or opportunities.

But "society" is only an abstraction, a way of describing the relationships, the actions, the beliefs of individuals. Despite what every dictator or tyrant or statist has proclaimed, society as a separate entity does not literally exist apart from and above the separate and distinct individuals who comprise it. Just as the ideas of "right" and "left" have no meaning when divorced from the people involved, so too, "society" loses its coherence when reified (and too often, deified).

In addition to supplying a (poor) rationale for the plethora of social programs dragging us down -- from Social Security and Medicare to business subsidies and disaster relief -- the notion of collective responsibility, obligation, or guilt obliterates proper understanding and application of justice and equity by punishing the innocent majority for the transgressions of the criminal few.

Most regulations, laws, and prohibitions are propounded by pointing out that certain abuses have occurred in the past. Thus, because certain people have engaged in improper behavior, everyone must be presumed to be a potential criminal and have his choices and actions inspected, constrained, or curtailed. Such legal machinations act as a kind of prior restraint. They sanction the notion that the agents of the government must, in essence, punish citizens -- for potential improprieties -- beforehand by means of dictates, fees, or restrictions on what they do and/or how they do it.

But an implicit assumption of guilt -- before you have even acted -- violates the constitutionally recognized principle that you can only be punished after you have actually done something wrong. Even then, the legal system must assume the innocence of the accused. The courts must prove you are guilty. To make you prove you are innocent -- as most regulations on business and individuals do -- is rank injustice. To add insult to the injury, many of the laws strangling us today are based on some group's notion of morality regardless of whether or not you have actually violated anyone's rights (for example, with consensual "crimes" such as prostitution, drug use, and gambling).

Affirmative action policies punish those who were never racist for the sins of those long dead, an indirect "corruption of blood." Business regulations assume that only state scrutiny prevents all entrepreneurs from being polluters, swindlers, and cheaters. Sexual harassment and anti-discrimination laws (whether for sex, race, ethnic background, age, or disability) squeeze us all into narrow-minded compartments of barely suppressed bigotry held in check only by the good graces of the bureaucrats.

Tens of thousands of gun (i.e., people) control laws treat peaceful, rights-respecting individuals as criminals held at bay only because they must jump through arbitrary, unconstitutional hoops that disarm and endanger millions while leaving the field unchallenged to the rapists, robbers, and burglars.

The "rule of law" has morphed into the "rule of men." Politicians, regulators, and law enforcement agents see us today as blank, faceless, and interchangeable segments of whatever particular group they have focused upon. No longer are we treated as distinct individuals. Instead we are lumped together, punished for no sin of our own, treated not as innocent individuals, but as untrustworthy villains-by-proxy.
The Constitution has been turned on its head. Instead of the individual at the pinnacle of the pyramid, today he is crushed by the weight of the masses who take precedence in their anonymity over his unique and individual life and personality. Instead of the individual being able to do anything not prohibited and the state only that which is permitted, in modern society, the abstract (and literally nonexistent) state has virtually carte blanche to chase after every whim. The true, fundamental component of our culture -- a single, real, breathing person -- is bound and chained, able to choose only from a narrower and narrower range of what is allowed him as a privilege, not a right.
As mentioned, the very notion of "rights" has itself been both bloated and choked. On the one hand, "rights" to health care, housing, food, education and on and on are manufactured out of thin air. On the other hand, property rights -- the foundation for implementing the right to your own existence -- is suppressed by the rampant moral inflation of bogus rights. Coupled with both malign neglect and direct attacks upon property, we drift without legal anchor or direction.
To restore freedom, we must reclaim the moral initiative. We must re-consecrate respect for justice as a trait of the individual, not the collective. We must hold as sacrosanct our right to earn and hold property, to direct its use, and to wield it as a shield against malefactors. We must proclaim our right as free, autonomous, and sovereign individuals to do what we want, say what we will, and build our lives without the permission, sanction, or approval of any group. As long as we respect the same rights of all others, we should and must never be punished for the transgressions of the few.

If we turn to those restrictions that only apply to certain classes of society

“If we turn to those restrictions that only apply to certain classes of society, we encounter a state of things which is glaringly obvious and has always been recognized. It is to be expected that the neglected classes will grudge the favored ones their privileges and that they will do everything in their power to rid themselves of their own surplus of privation. Where this is not possible a lasting measure of discontent will obtain within this culture, and this may lead to dangerous outbreaks. But if a culture has not got beyond the stage in which the satisfaction of one group of its members necessarily involves the suppression of another, perhaps the majority---and this is the case in all modern cultures,---it is intelligible that these suppressed classes should develop an intense hostility to the culture; a culture, whose existence they make possible by their labor, but in whose resources they have too small a share. In such conditions one must not expect to find an internalization of the cultural prohibitions among the suppressed classes; indeed they are not even prepared to acknowledge these prohibitions, intent, as they are, on the destruction of the culture itself and perhaps even of the assumptions on which it rests. These classes are so manifestly hostile to culture that on that account the more latent hostility of the better provided social strata has been overlooked. It need not be said that a culture which leaves unsatisfied and drives to rebelliousness so large a number of its members neither has a prospect of continued existence, nor deserves it.”

Finally somebody is letting a banker have it - love that woman!

Finally somebody is letting a banker have it - love that woman!  

Shown  below, is an actual letter that was sent to a  bank by an 86 year old woman.  (This lady must be an attorney or an extraordinarily gifted debater!)

The  bank manager thought it amusing enough to have  it published in the New York  Times. 

----------------

    
Dear  Sir:

I  am writing to thank you for bouncing my check  with which I endeavored to pay  my
  plumber  last month.

By  my calculations, three nanoseconds must have  elapsed between his presenting  the
  check  and the arrival in my account of the funds  needed to honor it..

I  refer, of course, to the automatic monthly  deposit of my entire pension, an  arrangement
  which,  I admit, has been in place for only eight  years.

You  are to be commended for seizing that brief  window of opportunity, and also  for
  debiting  my account $30 by way of penalty for the  inconvenience caused to your bank.

My  thankfulness springs from the manner in which  this incident has caused me to  rethink
  my  errant financial ways.

I  noticed that whereas I personally answer your  telephone calls and letters, --- when  I
  try  to contact you, I am confronted by the  impersonal, overcharging,  pre-recorded,
  faceless  entity which your bank has become.

From  now on, I, like you, choose only to deal with a  flesh-and-blood person.

My  mortgage and loan repayments will therefore and  hereafter no longer be  automatic,
  but  will arrive at your bank, by check, addressed  personally and confidentially to  an
  employee  at your bank whom you must nominate.

Be  aware that it is an OFFENSE under the Postal Act  for any other person to open
  such  an envelope.

Please  find attached an Application Contact which I  require your chosen employee to complete.

I  am sorry it runs to eight pages, but in order  that I know as much about him or her  as
  your  bank knows about me, there is no  alternative.

Please  note that all copies of his or her medical  history  must be countersigned by  a
  Notary  Public, and the mandatory details of his/her  financial situation (income,  debts,
  assets  and liabilities) must be accompanied by  documented proof.

In  due course, at MY convenience, I will issue your  employee with a PIN number which
  he/she  must quote in dealings with me.

I  regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits  but, again, I have modeled it on the  number
  of  button presses required of me to access my  account balance on your phone bank service.

As  they say, imitation is the sincerest form of  flattery.

Let  me level the playing field even  further.

When you call me,  press buttons as  follows:

IMMEDIATELY AFTER  DIALLING, PRESS THE STAR (*) BUTTON FOR  ENGLISH

#1.  To make an appointment to see  me

#2. To query a missing  payment.

#3. To transfer the  call to my living room in case I am  there.


#4  To transfer the call to my bedroom in case I am  sleeping

#5. To transfer the  call to my toilet in case I am attending to  nature.

#6.  To transfer the call to my mobile phone if I am  not at home

#7. To leave a  message on my computer, a password to access my  computer is required.
       Password will be communicated to you at a later  date to that Authorized Contact
         mentioned earlier.

#8.  To return to the main menu and to listen to  options 1 through 7.

#9.  To make a general complaint or inquiry.
       The contact will then be put on hold, pending  the attention of my automated
         answering service.

#10. This is a second  reminder to press* for English.

       While this may, on occasion, involve a lengthy  wait, uplifting music will play  for
          the duration of the call.

Regrettably,  but again following your example, I must also  levy an establishment fee to
  cover  the setting up of this new arrangement.

May  I wish you a happy, if ever so slightly less  prosperous New Year?

Your  Humble Client

And remember:  Don't make old People mad.
We  don't like being old in the first place, so it  doesn't take much to tick us  off.

Harry Truman was a different kind of President

Harry  Truman was a different kind of President.  He probably  made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation's  history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure  of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the  White House.

The only asset he had when he died was the  house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri . His  wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than  their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives  there.

When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a  year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and  personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and,  later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per  year...

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated,  Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was  no Secret Service following them.

When offered  corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating,  "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and  that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."

Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on  his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't  consider that I have done anything which should be the reason  for any award, Congressional or otherwise."

As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.

Modern politicians have found a new level of  success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold  wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to  become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their  offices. Political offices are now for sale.  (sic.   Illinois )

Good old Harry Truman was correct when he  observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player  in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth,  there's hardly any difference!

I say dig him up and clone him!! 

This is not sent for  discussion..        

If you agree, forward it.   If you don't, delete it. I don't want to know one way or  the other.  By me forwarding it, you know how I feel. 

Plutonomics

It’s well known that the rich have an outsized influence on the economy.
The nation’s top 1% of households own more than half the nation’s stocks, according to the Federal Reserve. They also control more than $16 trillion in wealth — more than the bottom 90%.
Yet a new body of research from Citigroup suggests that the rich have other, more-surprising impacts on the economy.
Ajay Kapur, global strategist at Citigroup, and his research team came up with the term “Plutonomy” in 2005 to describe a country that is defined by massive income and wealth inequality. According to their definition, the U.S. is a Plutonomy, along with the U.K., Canada and Australia.
In a series of research notes over the past year, Kapur and his team explained that Plutonomies have three basic characteristics.
1. They are all created by “disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist friendly cooperative governments, immigrants…the rule of law and patenting inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.”
2. There is no “average” consumer in Plutonomies. There is only the rich “and everyone else.” The rich account for a disproportionate chunk of the economy, while the non-rich account for “surprisingly small bites of the national pie.” Kapur estimates that in 2005, the richest 20% may have been responsible for 60% of total spending.
3. Plutonomies are likely to grow in the future, fed by capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity and globalization.
Kapur says that once we understand the Plutonomy, we can solve some of the recent mysteries of the American economy. For instance, some economists have been puzzled (especially last year) about why wild swings in oil prices have had only muted effects on consumer spending.
Kapur’s explanation: the Plutonomy. Since the rich don’t care about higher oil prices, and they dominate spending, higher oil prices don’t matter as much to total consumer spending.
The Plutonomy also could explain larger “imbalances” such as the national debt level. The rich are so comfortably rich, Kapur explains, that they have started spending higher shares of their incomes on luxuries. They borrow much larger amounts than the “average consumer,” so they have an exaggerated impact on the nation’s debt levels and savings rates. Yet because the rich still have plenty of wealth and healthy balance sheets, their borrowing shouldn’t be a cause for concern.
In other words, much of the nation’s lower savings rate is due to borrowing by the rich. So we should worry less about the “over-stretched” average consumer.
Finally, the Plutonomy helps explain why companies that serve the rich are posting some of the strongest growth and profits these days.
“The Plutonomy is here, is going to get stronger, its membership swelling” he wrote in one research note. “Toys for the wealthy have pricing power, and staying power.”
To prove his point, he created a “Plutonomy Basket” of stocks, filled with companies that sell to the rich. The auction house Sotheby’s is on the list, along with fashion houses Bulgari, Burberry and Hermes, hotelier Four Seasons, private-banker Julius Baer and jeweler Tiffany’s. Kapur says the basket has risen an average of 17% a year over the past year, outperforming the MSCI World Index.
Of course, Kapur says there are risks to the Plutonomy, including war, inflation, financial crises, the end of the technological revolution and populist political pressure. Yet he maintains that the “the rich are likely to keep getting even richer, and enjoy an even greater share of the wealth pie over the coming years.”
All of which means that, like it or not, inequality isn’t going away and may become even more pronounced in the coming years. The best way for companies and businesspeople to survive in Plutonomies, Kapur implies, is to disregard the “mass” consumer and focus on the increasingly rich market of the rich.
A tough message — but one worth considering.