Impeach Obama Has a Traitor?

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I have the following message from one of my associates.
Notice that he asks why Obama is not impeached as a traitor.
My answer to him is that I cannot impeach Obama, but Congress can.
If you see this as a justifiable impeachment action, you certainly have my support and that of my associate to move ahead on this.

-----Original Message-----
Fent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:04 PM
To: Arthur Sucsy
Subject: Re: Executive Order to Bring Hamas to the US

Do I have this right?

Hamas is the majority of the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas is dedicated to killing all the Jews (who, in Israel, are our friends)

Obama gives $20.3 million to the Palestinian Authority.

It appears that Obama supports our enemies who want to kill our friends.

If I have this right, why is not Obama impeached as a traitor?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Arthur Sucsy"
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:18:56 PM
Subject: Executive Order to Bring Hamas to the US

Randy,
Please connect the dots.
From Wikipedia:
The Migration and Refugee Assistance Act was passed in 1962 to
deal with unexpected and urgent needs of refugees, displaced
persons, conflict victims, and other persons at risk around the
globe.
The Act was brought into force during the Clinton
administration in 2001 to deal with the crises in the Balkans
and Nepal.
In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections Hamas
won a decisive majority in the Palestinian parliament.
The Act was cited by President Barack Obama in 2009 to
authorize money up to $20.3 million related to needs of
Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. [1]

www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/middleeast/01hamas.Apr 1,
2008 – While the Palestinian Authority has made efforts to end
incitement against Israel and Jews, Hamas feels no such
restraint.

This is Google's cache of
http://smoothstoneblog.com/2009/01/extermination-of-jews-and-ham
as-ideology.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on
Jul 23, 2011 03:42:38 GMT. The current page could have changed
in the meantime.
Hamas believes that this supremacy of Islam obligates them to
commit genocide, literally to exterminate millions of people who
have different beliefs, including the Jews.

Executive Order to Bring Hamas to the US

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Please connect the dots.

From Wikipedia:

The Migration and Refugee Assistance Act was passed in 1962 to deal with unexpected and urgent needs of refugees, displaced persons, conflict victims, and other persons at risk around the globe.

The Act was brought into force during the Clinton administration in 2001 to deal with the crises in the Balkans and Nepal.

In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian parliament.

The Act was cited by President Barack Obama in 2009 to authorize money up to $20.3 million related to needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. [1]


www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/middleeast/01hamas.Apr 1, 2008 – While the Palestinian Authority has made efforts to end incitement against Israel and Jews, Hamas feels no such restraint.


This is Google's cache of http://smoothstoneblog.com/2009/01/extermination-of-jews-and-hamas-ideology.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jul 23, 2011 03:42:38 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

Hamas believes that this supremacy of Islam obligates them to commit genocide, literally to exterminate millions of people who have different beliefs, including the Jews.

Exit Afghanistan

EIN News says, "Petraeus Hands Over Command in Afghanistan Gen. David Petraeus handed over command of American and coalition forces in Afghanistan to Gen. John Allen on Monday, transferring responsibility for the nearly 10-year war as Kabul's international allies draw up exit plans from the conflict. (theglobeandmail.com)".

No comment on the transfer of command, other than there shouldn't be a need for transfer.

I very much like the part about Kabul's international allies drawing up exit plans. I hope the exit plan includes us. We should be out, out, out!

Removing Pres. Obama from Office III

I have a reply from an associate concerning my previous blog on removing Pres. Obama from office.
Please note what he has to say below.

ACS

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 12:43 AM
To: 'Arthur Sucsy'
Subject: RE: Removing Pres. Obama from Office III

Equally important to informing the people (by the people’s House) that the President has committed many untenable offenses against the country, the people, and the laws of the land, America desperately needs to send the message to the rest of the world that the American people are no longer going to tolerate Obama’s representation of who we are as a people.

America has become the laughing stock of the world, even in Russia as expressed in Pravda. Once we, as a people, finally understand that we have been deceived by an international conspiracy that includes main stream media, entrenched government, public education, corrupt union leaders, and hard left leaders now in power and influenced by, if not controlled by, George Soros and America’s other mortal enemies worldwide, the rest of the world must know that we the people will not willingly sink into socialist captivity or willingly be governed by a thugocracy.

The world still needs an exceptional America as the world’s last hope for freedom and opportunity, if we can avoid our own willing self destruction.

This is the essence of peaceful revolt in a Democratic Republic. We owe it to ourselves, our children, and the millions of military personnel who have sacrificed to maintain the dream of freedom and exceptional opportunity that is America.

Incandescent Light Bulbs

This is a communication with Rep. Neugebauer.

The issue here is whether government should be cotrolling what the public purchaes by withholding competitive products from the market place.

Randy,
Right on target! Please keep pushing it, but more importantly. press Pres. Obama to the wall, so that he starts doing the right things,

ACS

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 8:33 AM
To: 'Arthur Sucsy'
Subject: RE: Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent legislation relating to incandescent light bulbs. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views about this important issue.

As you know, Representative Joe Barton (TX-6) introduced H.R. 2417 on July 6, 2011. This bill would repeal the provision of a 2007 energy law (PL 110-140) that created minimum efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs and would eliminate $30 million in funding for the Department of Energy research and consumer education related to energy-efficient lighting.

Due to urgency about the standards going into effect by January 1, 2012, the bill was fast-tracked through the House of Representatives. Six days after it was introduced, H.R. 2417 was brought directly to the floor under a procedural rule that required a two-thirds majority to pass. You will be pleased to know that I fully supported this measure and voted for the repeal of the 2007 standards. Unfortunately, although the final vote was 233-193 in favor of the measure, it did not receive the two-thirds majority (290 votes) it required for approval. However, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton, has suggested that he will try to return this bill to the floor under a rule that would only require a simple majority to pass.

I believe these new standards will threaten consumer choice by phasing out the traditional light bulb and replacing it with more expensive compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). This regulation is a perfect example of an overreaching government intrusion into the lives of everyday Americans. I cannot support any plan where the government steps in and picks winners and losers.

Please be assured that I will continue to support this legislation and other similar bills should they come before the full House of Representatives for a vote.

Removing Pres. Obama from Office II

My original message on removing Pres. Obama from office by an impeachment process, as indicated below, gave little hope of success.

I have now heard from one of my associates, who made the following suggestion:

"Perhaps, if the House were to impeach Obama it would create enough publicity that many would be awakened to Obama's dictatorial behavior and be more inclined to vote against him in 2012. If so, that would not be an exercise in futility."

I believe this suggestion has merit, and I recommend that Rep. Neugebauer pursue it in the House.


-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Sucsy [mailto:asucsy@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:17 PM
Subject: Removing Pres. Obama from Office


On June 17 by Executive Order, Pres. Obama established the Dream Act.
The Dream Act is basically an amnesty program for young illegal immigrants. They can become nonprosecutable by serving two years in the military or two years in a college/university. Congress has previously considered the Dream Bill, and has not voted favorably to direct it to the President for his signature.

In using the Executive Order to establish the Dream Act, the President has effectively thumbed his nose at the Congress. Another way to look at it is that the President is now exercising dictatorial powers, which makes Congress an unnecessary legislative body.
Since this is also likely to get worse, the question has been raised as to whether the President can be impeached.

The answer appears to be that a simple majority vote in the House can impeach the President. However, that would be merely a designation of dissatisfaction with his performance. In order to remove him from office, there must be an additional two-thirds vote in the Senate. Since the Senate is now controlled by socialists favorable to Obama, it is highly unlikely that this would occur. Unless someone has additional relevant information, the idea of removing the President from office through an impeachment procedure is not workable.

The next possibility might be a Recall Election. However, it is said that Recall Elections are not applicable at the federal level. An alternative is that both houses of Congress have the right to remove officials, who do not meet the standards required by Congress. It looks like we are dead on this one too, because of the high incidence of socialist Obama supporters in the Senate.

It appears we are stuck with Dictator Obama until at least the 2012 elections. Can we hope, and I daresay pray, that he will do a minimum of damage in the slightly more than a year he has left in his term of office.

Removing Pres. Obama from Office

On June 17 by Executive Order, Pres. Obama established the Dream Act.

The Dream Act is basically an amnesty program for young illegal immigrants. They can become nonprosecutable by serving two years in the military or two years in a college/university. Congress has previously considered the Dream Bill, and has not voted favorably to direct it to the President for his signature.

In using the Executive Order to establish the Dream Act, the President has effectively thumbed his nose at the Congress. Another way to look at it is that the President is now exercising dictatorial powers, which makes Congress an unnecessary legislative body.

Since this is also likely to get worse, the question has been raised as to whether the President can be impeached.

The answer appears to be that a simple majority vote in the House can impeach the President. However, that would be merely a designation of dissatisfaction with his performance. In order to remove him from office, there must be an additional two-thirds vote in the Senate. Since the Senate is now controlled by socialists favorable to Obama, it is highly unlikely that this would occur. Unless someone has additional relevant information, the idea of removing the President from office through an impeachment procedure is not workable.

The next possibility might be a Recall Election. However, it is said that Recall Elections are not applicable at the federal level. An alternative is that both houses of Congress have the right to remove officials, who do not meet the standards required by Congress. It looks like we are dead on this one too, because of the high incidence of socialist Obama supporters in the Senate.

It appears we are stuck with Dictator Obama until at least the 2012 elections. Can we hope, and I daresay pray, that he will do a minimum of damage in the slightly more than a year he has left in his term of office.

US Leave Afghanistan Now

EIN News says, "Taliban Claim Assassination of Afghan President's Brother Ahmed Wali Karzai The Taliban claimed responsibility for the assassination of President Hamid Karzai's younger brother on Tuesday, calling it "one of our biggest achievements" in nearly a decade of war. (indiatimes.com)".

I don't see what "nearly a decade of war" has to do with this, but let's go on.

We're obviously sorry to see the demise of the president's younger brother, but it really has nothing to do with us. We have no reason to be in Afghanistan and had no obligation to protect the President or the President's younger brother.

The Taliban is claiming responsibility for the assassination, obviously because they believe it will increase their following and their power. In other words, the Taliban believes that the general population is antagonistic to the President and his family, and that the assassination is a favorable political move. Who are we to dispute this point? Do we know more about what the Afghan public thinks than does the Taliban? I doubt it.

I repeat what I have said several times. The US should get out of Afghanistan and now. There's no reason to believe that the Afghan public wants us there. We have no reason to be there for US security reasons. And, the Afghan people have a right to determine their own destiny.

Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs

Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

The House approved an energy independence bill in 2007 and it became the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Among other things, the bill requires roughly 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This effectively bans the sale of most current incandescent light bulbs. More simply, I will not be able to purchase an incandescent light bulb next year.

My major concern is that Congress had no business banning incandescent balls. It encroaches on my personal liberty of what I can or cannot purchase. The bill should not have become law in the first place, but now that it has, I depend on the House to repeal at least the section on promoting fluorescent light bulbs by banning incandescent light bulbs.

Randy, I depend on you to get rid of this provision in the 2007 Act that encroaches on my personal freedom. I understand this matter may be coming up for a vote in the House this week, and I expect you to take appropriate action not only in casting your vote but in convincing others to vote as you do.

Complexity in Contacting Representatives and Senators

Why does Congress hide from contact with the public by using a system, which essentially involves secret e-mail addresses?

I recently tried to contact John Boehner to indicate my support of his program to play hardball with the Administration on raising the federal limit. In order to do so, I had to fill in my first name, last name, street address, town, state, zip code, and e-mail address. In the process, something happened wherein I had to start all over. This tired me, annoyed me, and discouraged me to the extent that I gave up and decided to write this complaint essay instead.

The Internet is a great technological development for easy communication. The e-mail system includes my e-mail address book, which comes up automatically as soon as I wish to direct my message. One click and e-mail address is in. I can then concentrate on what I really want to say without a "ring around the rosy process" of filling in a form with a lot of detail, which the recipient doesn't need, since he automatically knows who sent the message to him. By this process, I can easily ask my neighbor if he has read the latest book or plans to go to church. However, when I want to contact the leaders of my country on something important, the situation becomes more complex. I repeat the question: "Why do members of the Senate, House of Representatives, various government agencies, etc. force me to use a complex process in attempting to e-mail them?"

I might guess at a few reasons. The recipients might be afraid of getting too much information. The answer to that is they have hired staff to handle it. Too many of the messages might be considered ridiculous or inappropriate. Again, we have hired staff to weed them out. In addition, the voter has the right to be heard, whether the public official considers the question ridiculous or not.

The founding fathers were pretty good at writing the details of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but they missed one important aspect. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting --------------, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press---------". One can use a system of directives to accomplish the same thing, without actually making a law. If the Supreme Court is properly doing its job, it would judge such directives in the same light as a law, but many of the directives are so numerous and of such small significance that the Supreme Court could not handle them. Another method is to use a complex system of impediments so that the right of freedom of speech and the press is effectively abridged. This is what is happening with the e-mail system. It has also been used effectively against Representatives and Senators alike, who submit 2000-page bills, such as the Health Care Bill, without an opportunity for reading and understanding before a necessary vote.

I guess it all lies in the intent of the recipient. If he doesn't want to be contacted, he will set up a system to make it difficult to be found. Since the system of hidden e-mail addresses is so widely used in government, it would tend to make me vote against all incumbent officeholders.

Communication with Rep. Neugebauer

I received an e-mail from Caitlin Alcala, who is a member of Rep. Neugebauer's staff. She said they appreciate my various e-mails and would be willing to acknowledge more of them, if I would accept form letters. My reply is as follows:

Caitlin,

I accept your generous offer unconditionally. However, I believe some additional information might be helpful to you.

First, I do not require more frequent responses to my e-mails (letters). Your occasional confirmation that they are being received and considered is primarily enough for me. People ask if I ever receive responses from Rep. Neugebauer. I reply that I usually do not, but still feel that I have made some slight impact.

With respect to form letters versus specifically designed letters, I have no objection to the former. I fully recognize that Rep. Neugebauer and his staff have many problems and opportunities to consider and cannot develop personal letters for each person who contacts them. My only limitation is that a form letter should have some relationship to the subject at hand. A converse situation exists on my contacts with Sen. Hutchison. I usually receive from her a form letter response which may be one to two weeks later than my original e-mail. In addition, 90% of the time the form letter has no relationship to the subject I had previously communicated. For example, I may have sent an e-mail concerning military expenditures, and she will reply with an e-mail concerning the wage and hour law. I find this ineptitude in her and her staff unconscionable.

The other aspect that you should be aware of is that my communications with Rep. Neugebauer are public information. Whenever I send an e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer, I send copies to my 35 Political Advisers. I also have a series of blogs, which many times include "An Open Letter to Rep. Neugebauer". Finally, I make a Twitter reference to the same blog. The blog always contains my personal opinions supported by some facts, but I have usually not quoted Rep. Neugebauer directly.

You may not know that I am a chemist/businessman, who is primarily scientifically oriented. That means I am more logically motivated by a search for truth and efficiency than I am by personal emotions. My ideologies are based upon my personal experience and world history. I am not an abuser of compassion, nor am I stone-hearted. If anyone on your staff is interested in my blog, the series is based on the generic http://arthur-[blogname].blogspot.com. There are now 7 different blog topics, each of which has a different [blogname]. Within each blog there are many postings. The blog names are as follows: government, climatecontrol, education, finance, healthcare, energy, and scienceandpolitics. As of today, there are 664 individual blogs.

Collectively, I have a following, but who knows what that is? Just as Rep. Neugebauer does not know how many votes he will garner in the next election. After 33 years of corporate work, I now only work part-time as Director of Environmental Compliance for a university. This gives me a lot of free time to spend the remainder of my years trying to correct the recent abuses of socialism by Pres. Obama and the present Congress, which was initiated as far back as the Roosevelt Administration.

Art

Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net

Open Letter to Rep. Neugebauer

Randy,

I read your latest newsletter.

I am a patriotic American, and I thought the Macy Independence celebration in New York was terrific. But 4 paragraphs on Independence Day in your newsletter are too much to be covered in a basic business letter. One paragraph is enough.

Thankfully, your next item was on the country's business. You devoted three paragraphs to Pres. Obama's declaration of Texas counties as a disaster area. In reading it, I felt rather squeamish. I am certainly sorry for some difficulties caused to individuals and even companies by Texas fires during this drought, but these are facts of life. Individuals and companies should protect themselves by purchasing insurance and occasionally, through group or personal efforts, reduce local flammable materials which would jeopardize homesteads in any subsequent fire. It is basically not the responsibility of the government to come running in with taxpayer money to make restitution. Government does have the responsibility to investigate and prosecute any individuals, who have initiated the fires. Some reasonable collective government effort should also be used to protect individual houses through fire departments, although volunteer fire departments are always preferable to a socialistic government operations.

Your next item was the defense appropriation bill. I have written you separately on that, making a clear distinction between military aggression and military defense and the costs of each. I now refer to your specific figures. Cutting only $9 billion from Pres. Obama's $530 billion request is an insult to the American public, in these times of tremendous public debt and the obvious need to be radically cutting expenses. I consider radical expense cutting as in the neighborhood of 20 to 50%. The House action on defense appropriation gave us a 1.7% cut. Picayune and abominable!

I have also written you separately on your question of the week involving defense cuts and troop readiness. I've complained that this was a poorly worded question, but fortunately, Texans seem to be pretty astute and 62% apparently had a proper understanding and recommended cuts.

Congressional Representatives Must Sway Their Associates to Develop Proper Government

Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer:

Dear Randy,

I very much appreciate your letter directed to me, even though it was a form letter.

You have again explained your position on overspending by the federal government, the need for government to listen to the people, and your voting record on various spending bills.

Your government philosophy is very similar to mine, which I have expressed to you many times. However, we have a fundamental difference, which go beyond voting. In each election, I vote for the candidate of my choice. On each bill, you vote approval or disapproval.

After that, the similarity disappears. Prior to my casting a vote, I spend considerable effort in trying to influence the voting public to cast candidate votes similar to mine. Conversely, I have the impression that while you vote on a particular bill either up or down, you make no reasonable attempt to convince your associates to cast their up or down votes in the same direction you do.

Therefore I consider you a passive representative. This is not personal condemnation. It is merely a matter of how I think you are not doing your job. Perhaps you may want to reconsider how you can become more active, not in your attempts at reelection, but in your efforts to sway your associates to develop and run proper government.

Spend $3.7 Trillion Plus on Present Wars?

EIN News says, "Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan Wars: U.S. Cost Is $3.7 Trillion and Up to 258,000 Lives The cost of U.S. military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will run to at least $3.7 trillion, a study has revealed. The staggering figure could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, with the deaths of up to 258,000 people, according to research. In human terms, 224,000 to 258,000 people have died directly from warfare - including 125,000 civilians in Iraq. (dailymail.co.uk)".

ABOMINABLE!

Let's take a look at the reasons why we will be spending at least $3.7 trillion. Each reason, is applicable to at least one of the three countries.

Deny Access to Weapons of Mass Destruction - There were none in each country. Our CIA gave false information about it, with respect to Iraq. Other countries have nuclear weapons, such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. None of these are generally friendly to the US. To protect ourselves from nuclear attack, we need strong intelligence and the capability of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles. The first is a responsibility of the CIA, if we can get it to work properly. The second is a matter of technical capability, which is not beyond our reach, if we had spent even a small portion of the $3.7 trillion on that.

Possibility of a biological weapons attack can be handled in the same manner as nuclear.

Control Terrorist Threat at Its Source - Good thought, but it does not require ground forces. This can be done by proper functioning of CIA intelligence, and satellite surveillance to locate training camps or operation centers. Attacking can be done with surgical strikes either on the ground, as with Osama bin Laden, or with bombs and missiles from either manned or drone aircraft.

Protect Human Rights of the Local Population - This is an unrealistic abuse of compassion coupled with egotism, which assumes that the US government knows what is desired and best best for all peoples of the world. An obvious fallacy! If the Afghans want the Taliban, and the Egyptians want the Muslim Brotherhood, who are we to say that they can't have them? If there is thought that these controls are being imposed upon the populace by autocratic governments, we again have no right to intervene. Those populaces allowed their governments to develop and they have the responsibility to change governments, if they feel it is not doing the job. Cite the Russian and French revolutions.

Protect The Continued Existence and Expansion of the US Empire - For what purpose? Power sake? Power is of no value unless it is demonstrated by use. In our case, our only use is an apparent attempt to gain more power. As a nation, we do not apparently believe in subjugation and taxing the vanquished. Conversely, we have demonstrated that wherever we have done damage in order to obtain control, we have engaged in restitution. Cite Germany and Japan from World War II and Iraq more recently. Do we want to spend $3.7 trillion plus to obtain power, which is of no practical value?

Keep Our Military Busy - Another ridiculous assertion! If you have no need for the military for the reasons cited above, disband most of it, keeping only what is necessary for protection. Released military service people will tend to increase unemployment, but that is easily corrected by a complete reversal of US government philosophy of big government and persecution of the capitalist system. The fact is that people with military training will be welcomed into the workforce, providing employers have an incentive for such hiring.

I may have missed one or more reasons why we engaged in wars with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and partially in Pakistan. If so, I would like to hear about them. If they are good reasons for continued military action in those countries and spending $3.7 trillion plus, let's keep going. Otherwise, out, out, out!

Corporate Jets

In recent days, Pres. Obama has been on TV several times ranting about tax breaks for corporate jets.

The purpose of the rant is to accentuate jealousy in the minds of the voters, which will be favorable to his reelection in 2012. More simply, he is saying that since the average voter does not have access to a corporate jet, why should we have a special class. Let's remove that by removing corporate jet tax breaks.

Effectively, he is calling for a tax increase. This is in spite of the fact that the last elections clearly sent out a message to government that the public wants to cut spending. However, this is contrary to Pres. Obama's concept of the brave new world, wherein government is all seeing, all knowing, and all powerful. He will not give up that position easily, because it increases his power base, which seems to be his only single interest.

Without such speculation, let's take a look at corporate jets. Corporations purchase these jets for use by their employees, generally officers, in order that they may operate more efficiently in performance of their duties. Such expenses are a normal part of doing business and are considered such in calculating profits for corporate taxes. There may also be some special unknown to me tax benefit for corporate jets, but that's not significant. The main point is that a corporate jet is an efficiency tool, no different than a pen or pencil.

On a comparative basis, Pres. Obama himself uses a corporate jet. It is called Air Force One. It is part of government expense for the President to more efficiently perform his duties. If society collectively judges that Air Force One does not improve efficiency, it should be eliminated. Another way to look at it is that since the average citizen does not have access to Air Force One, why should Pres. Obama have special privileges? Note the class warfare card.