Obama's Clever Move on Syria

Pres. Obama has found a pretty clever way out of his "red line" dilemma on Syrian chemical weaponsHe says he can make a unilateral decision for a military attack on Syria. [demonstrating power to satisfy his ego and remind people he is boss)

He will allow Congress to vote on the subject [shows he is a reasonable man and respects the position of Congress] [does not mention that Congress is not due back in session until 9/9, which automatically takes the heat off his expected order this weekend].

If Congress votes for or against military action, Obama will say it's the will of the people [similar to what Cameron did on the British Parliament vote.]

Hooray for the British!

I am an Anglophile!

My ethnic background is Hungarian, Armenian, and German. Even so, my objectivity has brought me to the conclusion that the English have made the greatest contribution of all nationalities to world stability.

You may question the previous imperialistic policies of England, but those same policies have made a great contribution to world organization. The English and their associated Welch and Scottish brethren are clear thinkers. They have made a few major mistakes, such as intentionally withdrawing from world domination and allowing Muslims to overrun their society, but the British government is still pure in English mentality. In addressing any world problem, they first ask, "What is in it for us?", and secondly, "Is it good for the world?"

For the past few days, our TV news has been full of chemical weapon use in the Syrian civil war. The major drumbeater for US war against the Syrian Assad Regime is the new US Secretary of State, John Kerry. The UN has faced its responsibility and has recently investigated chemical weapon use with a team on Syrian soil. The team report has not yet been issued. Meanwhile based presumably on the Kerry drum beating, British Prime Minister, David Cameron called for a vote in the British Parliament on whether the UK should support the US in a military action against the Assad regime The British Parliament is a combination of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, equivalent to the US Congress, which is composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The British Parliament, voted "no" on independent involvement in the Syrian conflict and therefore the UK would not support the US on any military action against Syria. David Cameron said the vote was the will of the British people, and I say. "Hooray for the British people". Clear thinking, as opposed to the muddle headed thinking of John Kerry. We don't know the basis of the negative British Parliament vote, but it probably involved a judgment that a British war would not be advantageous to the British people and Britain cannot be the world policeman for every atrocity that crops up.

The US government should take serious note.

Misguided US Attack on Syria

    The Washington Times says, "Obama struggles to justify Syria attack to skeptical Americans, Congress.The White House on Tuesday began to lay out a public justification for a possible bombing of Syria, saying the nation’s use of chemical weapons is a threat to U.S. interests."
    I am one of the skeptical Americans. The first thing I would like to know is how use of chemical weapons in Syria is a threat to US interests. It is easy to bandy about the term "threat to US interests", without being specific as to what those threats are. I suppose there are many who operate on emotional bases and who don't bother to ask themselves whether they are being hoodwinked. As a child, I was always very curious, driving my mother crazy by asking continually "why". In my subsequent 90 years, I have found this to serve me in good stead. It almost always gave me good information on which I could make a proper judgment.
    Let's speculate a little bit. How Is a stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria a threat to the US? As long as they remain in Syria, they can do no damage to citizens living in the US. They cannot be transported to the US for local use by ship, because all merchandise coming into the US by ship is controlled by US Customs Authority. Delivery to the US by rockets is also out. No country in that area has the capability of rocket delivery except for Russia, which is smart enough to know not to engage in such folly.
    Unless someone can think of another scenario, chemical weapons will stay in Syria or adjacent area and be used on local inhabitants or continue to be warehoused. In either case, it is no threat to the US. Any Americans in the area as tourists or workers should get out.
    If Pres. Assad is using chemical weapons on the rebels, or if the rebels are using chemical weapons on Assad's military, we have no problem. We don't like either side, and they don't like us. Why not let them kill each other, since both sides are our enemy? What about collateral damage to innocent civilians? First of all, there generally are no innocent civilians, except for children and very old indigent people. The average citizen in the Middle East is either on one side or the other of any argument, and most do at least something to support their preferred side. Example, during World War II the Japanese public supported the war against the US. Without that support, there would have been no war. Two atomic bombs helped the Japanese people decide that supporting war was not profitable. If Syrian parents are concerned about the safety of their children, they can flee to neighboring countries. Many have already gone to Turkey..
    We also hear the term "play" used in possible US involvement in the Syrian conflict. That term is generally used by people who liken war to a sporting event. I call them warmongers. Sen. John McCain is foremost in that group. His latest sales pitch is that the rebels are really nice guys. He knows them personally. They are not terrorists and had no malevolence to the US. Baloney! The Middle East is infiltrated with Al Qaeda, terrorists, and jihadists. Syria is no exception, including the rebels.
    President Obama will likely attack the Syrian regime, in favor of the rebels. If he does so, he will not only get no support from me and will get continued vigorous objection.  

Farm Bill

Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    Thank you for your form letter on the Farm Bill, which you voted against.
    You said, "The Senate-passed farm bill placed more emphasis on cynical Washington politics and special interests than on meaningful reform, and I could not vote to support it. This trillion-dollar bill unnecessarily held support for farmers and ranchers hostage to the unchecked growth of food stamp entitlements and other non-farming programs, costing 60 percent more than the last authorization, in 2008."
    As you adequately point out, food stamp entitlements and other nonfarming programs have no business being part of a farm bill. Food stamps should be part of a welfare bill and anything else not related to farm should be relegated to its appropriate category.
    Thanks again for recognizing this obvious discrepancy and doing your best to remedy it.

Internet Use Tax

Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    Thank you for your form letter, in which you express opposition to the Marketplace Fairness Act, which is a disguised name for a tax on Internet traffic.
    The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees free speech (communication) and any tax is an inhibition on such right

Congress Must Improve Oversight of Agencies

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I've read your latest newsletter and am only interested in the item involving the National Security Agency (NSA).
    You say that you were initially in full support of the NSA operations, but subsequently have received additional information such that you have established questions in your own mind and have written a letter to the NSA. You say that letter was posted on your website. I spent about 10 minutes trying to find it and was unsuccessful. This leads me to my usual complaint that most times important matters are sandwiched in with so much trash that it is difficult to find them.
    Even in the absence of reading your letter to the NSA, I can comment on your position. First, let me congratulate you that you are not so tied up with your own ego that you are not willing to change your mind when faced with additional facts.
    What you will learn from your additional investigations involving the NSA is obviously as yet undetermined, but is clearly a step in the right direction.    However, I am more concerned with the overall aspects of the relationship between Congress and the various federal agencies to which Congress gives birth. The record clearly shows that when Representatives and Senators come together with an agreed-on Bill, and it is signed by the President into law, Congress takes the attitude that the appropriate Administrative Agency will handle the details of application according to the terms covered by the law. However, we know from continuing releases of abuse on the part of federal agencies that such Congressional position is untenable.
    A system has been developed within the Congress to control this by use of Congressional Committees on Oversight. For example, Darrell Issa (CA) is Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The associated Subcommittee on Homeland Security is chaired by Jason Chaffetz (UT). These are the people who have been paying close attention to the activities of the NSA. Since they are members of the federal government, and in high positions, there should be little question about their qualifications for top security clearance, which would then allow them access to full detail of what the NSA was doing. If they did know that the NSA was collecting telephone information which has no bearing on the finding of potential terrorists, it is because they were not paying attention. More succinctly, they were not doing their jobs.
    But as I have said previously, this is only one instance of a recurrent theme. Rather than your pinning the NSA to the wall with your letter, it should have been established earlier by the Committee and Subcommittee that the general collection of data on average citizens having nothing to do with homeland security was no fraction of Fourth Amendment rights.
    May I respectfully suggest that you try to establish some procedure by which congressional committee and subcommittee chairmen can be more attentive to doing their jobs?

Syrians Sniping at UN

    The Washington Times says a vehicle belonging to a team investigating the Syrian regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons has been “deliberately shot at multiple times” by unidentified snipers in Damascus.
    Who is surprised by that?    Let's look at it from the points of view of both the Syrian government and the rebels. Remember, they are the people who have the guns and do the shooting.    Both sides have an interest and confidence in their own operations. The government plans to defeat the rebels and vice versa. Neither side would like interference from outsiders, unless it can be assured that the interference would be favorable to its side. Since it is not absolutely clear that UN presence would favor one side or the other, each side would likely feel threatened by UN presence. The best way to get the UN out is to use snipers, which then cannot be identified as a specific side.
    The only way the UN could not be attacked locally is for both the government and rebels to have decided they are tired of the whole mess and wish to call a draw. At that point the UN would be welcome.

Texas Voting

    The Washington Times says that US Atty. Gen. Holder has filed suit yesterday in federal court against the State of Texas. I couldn't determine in which court the suit was filed. It is said that the U.S. government will contend that Texas adopted a voter identification law with the purpose of denying or restricting voters' rights based on race, color or membership in a language minority group. More specifically, Atty. Gen. Holder is concerned that the State has redrawn its congressional district maps and passed a voter-ID law..
    I am pleased that Atty. Gen. Holder filed this suit, because without appropriate defense or rebuttal from the State of Texas on the accusation, it is implied that Atty. Gen. Holder is correct in his assertion.
The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Notice that it says CITIZEN, which indicates that the federal or state governments have a responsibility to determine that an intended voter is a true citizen. This would clearly eliminate consideration of any voting of illegal aliens.
We then come down to whether an intended voter has a bona fide restriction in claiming he is a citizen and proving who he says he is by photo ID. I came to Texas 16 years ago and have a Voter Identification Card. I don't remember how I received the card, but every time I wish to vote, I have no problems. I show my Voter Identification Card and my Drivers License with photo
What if I now didn't have a voter identification card? I went to http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/largepamp.shtml. That document says I can register to vote if I am:
A United States citizen;
A resident of the Texas county in which application for registration is made;
At least 18 years old on Election Day;
Not finally convicted of a felony, or, if so convicted must have (1) fully discharged the sentence, including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or completed a period of probation ordered by any court; or (2) been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disability to vote; and
Not determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be (1) totally mentally incapacitated; or (2) partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote.
From the above, I determine that I can register. How I do that?
The document says, "Registering to vote is easy in Texas.  It doesn't even require a stamp!  Official applications to register to vote are postage-paid by the State of Texas."
Fine, but what must I do?
The document says I can go to the County Voter Registrar's Office (address is probably in the phone book), post office, or high school to obtain an application. I also found that I can receive an application from https://webservices.sos.state.tx.us/vrapp/index.asp.
I requested the application by including information that I did not have a drivers license nor a Social Security number. I did claim to be a US citizen.
The application was printed out for me with information that I should sign and mail it to the Registrar of Voters at the address given. I had to claim that I was US citizen and a resident of the county. I was warned that giving false information on the application may result in fine and imprisonment. I was not asked for a birth certificate or passport. Presumably, if I mailed the signed form, I would receive my voter registration card.
But I also had noticed that in addition to my voter registration card, I would also need a photo ID to be able to vote at the voting booth. Since I didn't have a drivers license with my photo, what to do next?
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/electionID.htm tells me that I can get a photo ID as an Election Identification Certificate (EIC).
I downloaded the EIC application form from the above website and filled out the form. I had to answer several questions, but did not have to submit any other documents. The form required notarization, but I could have gotten that at my bank. I was supposed to take the completed application to the motor vehicle Bureau, where they would presumably take my picture and give me the EIC.
I was then set to vote, without having a drivers license, a Social Security number or presentation of a birth certificate or passport. The procedure was a bit complex, but I made it especially difficult by not having a drivers license or a Social Security number, which is usually unrealistic for most US citizens. "Low information voters" might have a little difficulty going through this procedure, but there are always people who will help.
Let's see what the US Justice Department can do in federal court on castigating the Texas voting procedure.

War Versus Sporting Events

    When Pres. Obama said that any group using chemical weapons would suffer severe consequences, he automatically set up a race to see who could first put the blame on the other side for chemical weapon use. That in turn would force the US to support the so-called underdog.
    That is exactly what is now occurring in Syria.. There is no certainty whether the Asaad regime or the rebels are actually using chemical weapons. Is the Asaad regime trying to set up blame on the rebels, so that it will obtain support of the US or are the rebels actually using chemical weapons in an attempt to blame the Asaad regime?
    This brings up the matter of chemicals, as weapons of war. As a chemist, I know and respect the potency of various chemicals with respect to physiological action on human beings. However, as my son points out, most people are not chemists and have an inherent fear of chemicals, because of their general lack of knowledge on the subject. This situation has persisted for quite a long time. and in fact shortly after World War I, it was the basis on which the major nations of the world agreed to the banning of chemical weapons in war.
    My point of view is that whether one kills people with chemicals, bullets in the heart, or blowing them to pieces with conventional explosives or atom bombs. it is all the same. War has only one intent. Kill the enemy. Patton was right about that.
    But most people apparently liken war to a sporting event, where we need certain rules. In boxing, the opponents must wear boxing gloves. In wrestling, one can't use certain headlock's. In Roman days, gladiators presumably went free, if they were able to kill their opponents in the presence of a huge audience.    `I suppose I'm mostly by myself on the matter of war. No rules! During World War II, I helped produce the atomic bomb. I didn't personally drop two of them on Japan, but I was glad to be part of it. Do I feel sorry for the thousands of Japanese that were killed? I do. But, they were trying to kill my fellow Americans and me. Would I use an atomic bomb again on people trying to kill me. You betcha!

Identify the Four Benghazi Employees

Open email to Rep, Issa (CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Dear Chairman Issa,    The Washington Times says, Secretary of State John F Kerry has reinstated four employees implicated in security lapses from last year's terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. You were mentioned as apparently having an objection and promising to expand your investigation to include Mr. Kerry's decision.
    As you have also said, your investigation has so far got nowhere and can be likened to musical chairs. May I suggest one reason is that you have failed to recall key witnesses, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and ask direct questions of where they were at the time the Benghazi attack took place, who else was there, where the President was, etc. Information from one witness should also be checked against information from second and third witnesses, in an attempt to determine where lying has taken place and can be subsequently prosecuted as perjury. In other words. I don't believe you have been playing "hardball".
    However, my present suggestion is that with the latest John Kerry development, we should not leave the identity of the four suspended employees as unspecified. The fact that the State Department has found their actions sufficiently objectionable to remove them from duty for a time indicates that they are likely not without responsibility. We should know exactly who they are. Their names, their job responsibilities, their length of service, and what they were doing at the time of the Benghazi attack.
    Identifying these people could possibly make them heroes in the eyes of their superiors and fellow workers in government, but the general public will likely look at it in a different way. The fact is that the American public has generally an antagonistic position toward government, finding it too big, and too intrusive to private rights and the private economy. If that public has any chance of reducing the size and influence of government, we need detail, and we can start with the names of the four excused employees. The next question is whether you yourself are part of trying to make a government accountable to the people or perpetuating its autocracy.

Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Obamacare and the Pledge of Allegiance

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer:

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your newsletter and have the following comments:

Obamacare
    You have complained again about various aspects and have recommended it be defunded.
    However, I ask what you are personally doing about it.

Pledge of Allegiance
    You don't like the objection of various groups to remove "under God" from the Pledge.
    However, I ask what you are doing to see that this doesn't happen.

The Muddled Middle East

    The Washington Times just released a story with a background that goes back 13 years.
     Apparently, the Assad regime allowed Syria to be used as a corridor to supply terrorists from North Africa to Iraq. Many of them still exist in Iraq, which is presumed to be one of the bases for continued unrest and killings in that country.
    However, this operation also gave Al Qaeda an opportunity to establish a base in Syria, which is said to be populated by about 6000 terrorists, all of which are now antagonistic to the Assad regime.
    Anything new about the situation? Not really. This sort of intrigue has been existing in the Middle East for the past few thousand years and will continue no matter how much money the US pours into it or how much Sec. Kerry now claims progress in peace establishment.
    Should we condemn Pres. Assad for allowing North African terrorists to pass through his country.? Should we feel sorry for him because they have now turned against him? No! We should take it at face value. They do what they do because that is their ingrained culture, which the US cannot and has no right to change.
    We should become involved only when terrorists are threatening our homeland. We don't care about Iraq nor Afghanistan. The people there will do what they wish to do and have a right to do.
    However, I am not advocating reactivity, which is to say wait for another 9/11 disaster in New York. I support proactivity within limitations. The limitations are to direct any of our activities against physically destructive plans of the enemy, but not to attempt to change a culture. The latter has proven futile. Proactivity against terrorists and their organizations can and should include physical destruction of training camps, and centers of administration wherever they exist. This can be done by drone bombings or the limited use of ground forces equivalent to SWAT teams. We also must have complete justification for such action, such as the enemy clearly espousing intent to do physical damage to the U.S. and its citizens..

Abolish the Sentencing Commission

Open letter to:

Rep. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary

2138 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515 

                                                    Subject: Abolishing the           Sentencing Commission

Dear Chairman Goodlatte,

          I am sending you this letter by US Postal Service, since I have been unable to find an email address to more expeditiously contact you. However, I still regard this as an open letter to the public, and will include it on my blog (http://arthur-government.blogspot.com) for public viewing on the Internet.

          The purpose of my letter is to ask you to initiate with Congress the abolishment of the Sentencing Commission.

          For those who will also read this letter, I explain the Sentencing Commission from its own website (http://www.ussc.gov/About_the_Commission/Overview_of_the_USSC/USSC_Overview.pdf) as follows:

          "The U.S. Sentencing Commission was created by the Sentencing Reform Act provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984." I remind my other readers that a law passed by Congress can also be modified by Congress.

          One of the "Principal purposes [of the Sentencing Commission] is to establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, including guidelines to be consulted regarding the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes."

          I have previously obtained a legal opinion concerning how well the Sentencing Commission is doing its job and how that affects other parts of the federal Justice System.. Yesterday, I reviewed my source information, on which basis I conclude that the Sentencing Commission does more harm than good and should be abolished.

          The Sentencing Commission appears to have a philosophical bias toward reduction of jail sentences for federal crimes. In attempting to accomplish that goal, the commission incorrectly uses data.

Much of its claim for sentence reduction for certain crimes is based upon recidivism data. The members of the Commission apparently have no experience with field law enforcement and make obvious errors. For example, the Commission tries to analogize recidivism rates for specific crimes to a general average. Experienced field officers immediately know that is an incorrect assumption. For example, the recidivism rate for murder is inordinately lower than that for burglary.

Another example of the inappropriateness of recidivism data involves the possession of sexual images of children, which is a federal offense. Common practice of child pornographers is to transmit sexual images involving children on the Internet, and in some cases collect those files on their computers. However, if a person has previously been questioned concerning child pornography, the likelihood of his being arrested for the offense using new evidence is remote. While he may still engage in the transmission and viewing of sexual pictures involving children on the Internet, he is usually wise enough to not collect the images on his computer. However, if he does so, he can almost always scrub the images from his computer while law enforcement officers are obtaining a search warrant.

My latest information source says that because the Sentencing Commission has judged child pornography to be at a significant low level based upon its recidivism data,, the Commission is recommending a significant reduction in jail terms for those persons prosecuted and found guilty. The Commission's representatives are now trying to "sell" this to federal law enforcement officers and prosecutors through a 400-page report. 400-page report? What nonsense! If I can make my point in a few-letter, why would anybody need a 400 page report? Has the Commission studied under those who prepared the Obamacare bill?

An equally if not more significant transgression of the Sentencing Commission is modifying the law as passed by Congress. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that only Congress has the right to pass laws and modify them. Any attempts at modification by other entities of the federal government, whether the Administration, as in modification of the Obamacare law, or by the Sentencing Commission are unconstitutional. I herewith give examples.

As you know, whenever Congress passes a law it includes a penalty clause. For example, in Title 18 Sexual Exploitation of Children, Section 2251, Part e, Congress has specified a penalty of imprisonment for not less than 15 years nor more than 30 years. In order to get around this specificity, the Sentencing Commission uses a devious technique.

The Sentencing Commission issues Sentencing Guidelines. As previously required by Congress, Federal Judges are required in each case to calculate, according to the formula of the Sentencing Guideline, a specific imprisonment time for each defendant found guilty. The Federal Judge may then use the Sentencing Guideline calculation in his sentencing, or he may deviate, at his option. However, if the Judge deviates from the Sentencing Guideline, he is required to explain in great detail the reasons for his deviation. Since Federal Judges generally handle a great number of cases, they justifiably tend to take the easy way out and rather than explain any deviation in sentencing, they normally accept the lower sentencing penalty of the Sentencing Guideline.

The question now arises as to how the Sentencing Commission establishes a practices of reduced sentencing within the constraints of the law as passed by Congress. This is easily accomplished by a devious technique.

If the law requires an imprisonment penalty of 10 to 20 years, the Sentencing Commission establishes, by use of faulty recidivism data and other questionable methods, a Sentencing Guideline of 6 to 10 years. For convenience, the judge chooses 10 years. He may really have felt that the sentences should have been 20 years, but by taking the 10 year option, he can avoid all the paperwork.

 The Sentencing Commission also engages in another practice which is detrimental to the Justice System, in addition to routinely establishing Sentencing Guidelines below or at the minimum of the penalties required by law, the Commission often later comes back with a further reduced Sentencing Guideline for the same offense. For example, if the law requires a penalty of 10 to 20 years, and the original Sentencing Guideline was 8 to 12, most offenders got 12 years. In a second pass, the Sentencing Guideline may be changed to 6 to 10 years, which means that old offenders would have gotten 12 years for an offense, while new offenders will get only 10 years for the same offense. This leads to a rash of review cases carried to the Circuit Courts and overburdens the system for not only the Circuit Court Judges but also for Prosecutors, who basically must re-prepare cases, which they had previously closed.

          All in all, Chairman Goodlatte, the Sentencing Commission is not only incorrectly doing its job, but is also causing inefficiency in the total Justice System is. I sincerely hope you and your associates will strongly consider legislation to abolish its existence. The Justice System can adequately work, without any interference by a Sentencing Commission.

US Confusion on Egypt

    The Washington Times says, "US/backspace-Egypt military ties strained; Obama cancels joint maneuvers". More than 600 have died in rioting.
    Let's have a little straight talk to Americans.
    The fighting in Egypt is between the Muslim Brotherhood and Christians. The Muslim brotherhood is a sector of the Muslim (Islam) religion. It is stated Muslim doctrine to convert the world's population to Muslims, and as indicated in Egypt they are willing to die for the cause.
    In fact as Americans, we accept that according to our Constitution, all Americans are entitled to follow whatever religious philosophy they wish. America was originally populated by Christians from Europe, and early immigration continued from that source. Therefore, all of the founding fathers for the of Declaration of Independence and the later Constitution were of Christian persuasion. They also recognized the existence of other religions and allowed for their presence.
    Notice from the above that as Americans, we have tolerance for other religious philosophies, even though a large percentage of us are of Christian persuasion. It is also extremely important to note the difference between religious philosophy and the practice of religion. If any religious sect practices any segment of its religion in a manner which is contrary to the laws of the United States, those persons are expected to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It should be noted that there is no justification for partiality, based on a bias toward one religion or another,.in the prosecution.
    With respect to Egypt, US citizens and its government should regard the attempted takeover of the Egyptian government by the Muslim Brotherhood as the right of Egyptians. They are not Americans and are not covered by American law, in spite of what our personal and governmental biases may be. Bottom-line: the US government should stay out of Egyptian political involvements, including not giving money or weapons assistance to either side.
    If the Muslims take over Egypt or even the whole Middle East, that is not an American concern, unless subsequent practices adversely affect American interests. When I say "interests", I am not concerned with intangibles. I mean, "Are the Muslims adversely affecting life and property of Americans?"
    The US has two obligations in the Middle East; a moral obligation to physically protect Israel and to maintain a continuous flow of traffic (oil, etc.), through the Suez Canal. Israel is now in no more imminent physical danger from the Egyptian Civil War, and appears to require no special efforts on the part of the US at this time. Conversely, the Muslim Brotherhood may decide that shutting down traffic through the Suez Canal would be advantageous to their cause. Since this would be a physical property related action of direct interest to US citizens, it behooves the US government to avoid that occurrence. The obvious answer is to be prepared for it, and such preparation would also give notice to the Muslim Brotherhood that such would be an ineffective attempt. This readiness is accomplished by the US placing on both the Mediterranean and Arabian Sea sides of the Canal sufficient naval warships (aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, etc. to control sea traffic at both ends and also have on board a sufficient number of Marines and/or other military personnel to adequately handle any attempts by a land force to shutdown canal operations.
    Other than keeping an eye on developments with respect to Israel and physically protecting continued traffic through the Suez Canal, the US has no other business in Egypt.

56 Killed in Egypt

    The Washington Times says 56 were killed and more than 600 injured in Egyptian riots.
    Egypt’s interim government issued a statement expressing sorrow over the bloodshed. Speaking on state-run TV, a spokesman said the government blamed the Muslim Brotherhood “for any blood spilled” and urged protesters to refrain from using violence, the BBC reported.
    Recall that the President Obama and Sec. of State Clinton, with US taxpayer dollars, supported the overthrow of Pres. Mubarak and the installation of Pres. Morsi, who represented the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian people rejected this change and threw Morsi out of office. Subsequent fighting has been led by the Egyptian Brotherhood in attempts to again gain control of the government.
    There are several ways to look at the situation.
    From Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton's point of view, this is only a slight deterrent in their efforts to Muslimize Middle East governments.
    From another point of view, this is typical of Middle East politics and unrest which has been occurring for a few thousand years, and will continue no matter what outside efforts are applied.
    From another point of view it is none of our business. The Egyptian people should be allowed to choose whatever government they wish, even if they have to kill each other to attain it. Our concern only should be that the Suez Canal remains open to traffic, and we should have US naval forces there to protect our interests in canal utilization.
    I'll go for the second and third points of view. I have no particular reason to want the Middle East more Muslimized then it is, especially if it costs me money, which it already has.
    On that basis, President Obama and Sec. Clinton's previous and probably current foreign policy, with respect to Egypt, is wrong, wrong, wrong!

Rep. Neugebauer on Obamacare, Washington size, & Abortions

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your newsletter and have the following comments:

Obamacare and Congress    You said that Obamacare requires Members of Congress and employees to take part in the new healthcare exchanges.
    However, I have heard that Pres. Obama has offered Congress and its staff an exemption. Would you please comment on that?

Washington Size
    You said that during your travels in Texas you discussed border security, government spending, Obamacare, and government regulations. The overall message was that Washington has gotten too big, and we need less government interference in our lives.
    What are you now doing to reduce the size of the federal government?

 

Abortions
    You said you requested an investigation so that we can be sure taxpayer dollars aren’t funding abortions. This is a step in the right direction.
    However, that is only part of the Planned Parenthood program of the federal government.
    The American public needs no government help in determining how to plan its family size. The Planned Parenthood program should be eliminated completely. If you are concerned with children being born to unwed mothers, that is not a matter for Planned Parenthood, but rather an economic program of the Administration to condone such action. Get rid of the subsidies. Women who have children out of wedlock and are unable to support them should be made to suffer or there is no reticence on the part of others to do the same.

   

Sen. Cornyn on Texas Elections

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn and Gov. Perry (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn and Gov. Perry,    I appreciate the Senator's recent efforts to refute claims by Atty. Gen. Holder that Texas voting practices are illegal.
    However while his figures make a good case that Hispanics and Blacks are not being disenfranchised in Texas, it seems to me that this is a matter for the Governor and his staff to defend in federal court. In fact, I suggest that Gov. Perry demand that Atty. Gen. Holder file the case for prosecution in federal court. Any less than this implies that Atty. Gen. Holder may be correct in his assertion.
    I strongly believe that the federal court case will absolve the state of Texas from any wrongdoing on franchise. If the local Federal Court and the Court of Appeals subsequently condemn Texas, I believe that would have been a result of Pres. Obama stacking those courts with his representatives. In that event, the case should be carried by Texas to the Supreme Court.

National Security Agency on Phone Data

Open Email To Rep. Michael T. McCaul (TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security:

 

Dear Rep. McCaul,    The Washington Times has an article concerning the National Securities Agency's (NSA) collection of telephone data on US citizens. The Times says that the debate on the legitimacy of such collection has been driven not by the Administration but by figures such as National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden.
    You are quoted in the Times article, but the wording is a bit confusing. Some could interpret it that you are FOR these programs, which are lawful, which have saved lives, and which have stopped terrorist plots. I doubt that such as your position, and I will go on to explain mine.
    The NSA program of telephone data collection on private citizens is unlawful. It is contrary to the Fourth Amendment.
    I doubt that collection of telephone data on innocent civilians has saved many lives. If this is incorrect, I would like NSA to explain how lives were saved.
    I also doubt that terrorist plots were stopped by collection of the telephone data as described by NSA. NSA has said they only collected telephone numbers of calls that had been made and the times that such calls were made. There were no connections between individuals and their respective telephone numbers, and it is inconceivable to me how any terrorists could be identified based only on an abstract number.
    I am all for the collection of any data which helps to identify a potential terrorist, but it should not be obtained by screening telephone records connected with private individuals. Such process is a clear infraction of Fourth Amendment rights. Seizing a specific person's telephone records must be based upon some suspicion of illegality and defined in a warrant signed by a federal judge to seize the records of that particular person. There is a federal secret court associated with NSA. That court should be abolished, because it is obviously a dupe of the NSA..
    I agree with Pres. Obama that the Patriot act, which set up the National Security Agency should be reviewed, and if necessary, changed to get it in conformity with the Fourth Amendment.

National Science Foundation Headquarters Move

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Members of Congress,
    I thought that Congress and the public had pretty much agreed that we were supposed to be cutting back on the size of government, because of tremendous over-extensions on annual budgets and the extremely rapidly increasing national debt.

    However, AW reports in the Concentrates Section of the June 17 issue of C&E News that the National Science Foundation (NSF) will move its headquarters in 2017 to a new building in Alexandria, Virginia. The move will involve the transfer of the agencies approximately 2100 person staff and contractors.

    The new building will be 660,800 ft.² and is now under construction. The GSA said that the move will save the taxpayers $65 million over 15 years. There is no indication of how much the NSF is paying in current and future rentals, nor whether the new building will be a rented or owned facility.
    I urge Congress to consider the current spending of the National Science Foundation, and further consider whether we need this agency at all. The Education Department alone spent $2.9 billion last year and is programmed to spend $3.1 billion next year.
    My own opinion is that the NSF is merely another handout program to the universities, which should be able to handle their own financial affairs through tuitions and donations.

    If there is any question about whether the NSF should be shut down, let us have a review of what they really do and decide whether those functions are necessary for the good of the American public.

Improving Scientific Knowledge at the State Department

Open email to Congress:

    This has apparently escaped me until now.
    Andrea Widner of C&E News has a four-page article in the May 13, 2013 on the state of science at the State Department. Apparently the State Department feels that its employees should have more scientific knowledge in order to better understand and react to the problems of the world.

    This is obviously not an area of controversy, because the State Department officials have responsibility to negotiate with foreign countries concerning various scientific matters, such as rockets, nuclear weapons, etc.. 

    While this is an admirable program, it has an obvious danger. Increasing science capability within the State Department cannot only improve scientific negotiations with other countries, but it can also be used for nation building, which is or should not be one of the objectives of the State Department. For example, it has been said that the State Department has developed a number of programs to work with 40 or 50 countries on ways to raise their level of scientific capability and scientific expertise. This sounds more like nation building than preparation for US State Department officials to be able to properly negotiate on scientific matters. It is also said that a few countries - Egypt, India, Israel, and Mexico for example - have specific funds set up by Congress to promote cooperative science project with the US. This again sounds like nation building to me. Not only should we get rid of that but ignore the State Department's request to have more money in its budget to support projects like this in other countries.

    We have considerable negative experience with nation building; for example, the failed wars with Korea and Vietnam, and more recently the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and subsequent military intervention in Egypt's and Libya's revolutions.

    Congress should see that scientific capability of the State Department employees is adequate to do their job of international relations but eliminate all funding with respect to nation building. The savings from the nation building limitation should be able to cover the cost of any new scientific capability within State.

Rabble-Rousers

     What is a rabble-rouser? Why do I want to talk about rabble-rousers?
    A rabble-rouser is simply a person who tries to stir up masses of people for action by appealing to their emotions rather than their reason. Rabble
    The first part of the term rabble-rouser is significant, but did because it describes the kind of people that the rabble-rouser affects. In this case, rabble means a group of people who have little education in logic and tend to deal more on emotions. Such emotions are generally hate, feelings of injustice, grudges, and the like. The picture then is a person with good voice standing on a soapbox in a crowd surrounded by people whose emotional mindset is favorable to the issues being described by the speaker. If one needs a clearer picture, look at some of the old issues of the TV series Gunsmoke and find those where somebody is inciting riot in a crowd. Usually that incitement involves breaking into a jail and hanging the supposed criminal without due process of law. It is a highly emotional situation and most times the examples show that the riot crowd has made an incorrect judgment based not only on law but also based on the moral aspects of the situation.
I am writing about rabble-rousers, because they are important, primarily from the damage that they can do to a society. For example, if a Gunsmoke mob hangs a supposed criminal and that person is later found to be innocent, there is a strong aftermath of regret and guilt which unsettles the community. This could be exacerbated by subsequent criminal charges against some of the rioters, all of which is destructive to the moral tranquility of the society.
In the case of the Zimmerman trial, George Zimmerman was found innocent of murder by a Florida jury. In that extensive trial, there was no indication of any kind of racial bias.
Subsequently, various rabble-rousers have addressed the general public to connect the Zimmerman situation with racial overtones. These addresses have appealed specifically to the poorly educated, highly emotional motivated individuals of the black community. The result is that we have seen some rioting of various sorts with the destruction of property and attacks on some whites by black rioters. This has occurred because of the effectiveness of the rabble-rousers. If the trial had been left to its own normal interpretation of satisfying the requirements of law, there would have been no subsequent reaction of this sort.
In the case of the Zimmerman trial, who were the rabble-rousers? In this case, they appear to all have been blacks, with their motivations likely stemming from long perceived feelings of injustice. The starters were likely Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. This created a sort of general feeling of unrest in the rabble black community.
More significantly, the unrest was later exacerbated by Eric Holder, the US Atty. General. With the general black rabble unrest at a low level, Eric holder used this as an excuse to come on television, ostensibly with the purpose of calming the black rabble by assuring them that the United States government would be investigating the Zimmerman situation more closely to determine whether there was some racial injustification. He could have done that in a few words and made his point very clearly, but he did not. He spoke at great length, as does the normal rabble-rouser on the soapbox and has actually further inflamed the rabble of the black community.
Today, the rabble of the black community was further inflamed by Pres. Obama. He may have had intention of calming the community, but he failed miserably, essentially because he spoke at great length in a rabble rousing manner. He mentioned the supposed social injustice of white people holding their purses closer to them when black people were with them in an elevator, or hearing the click of car doors being locked as black persons walked by in stopped automobile traffic. Why did he mention these riot-inciting examples? The likelihood is that he himself is not a completely rational person dedicated to the rule of law and the advancement of all Americans, no matter what their race color or creed. He has given us a perfect example of a rabble person inciting riot in a similar rabble group.
I can feel sorry for Pres. Obama in his feeling of insufficiency as a black person, but I cannot excuse him nor Atty. Gen. Holder for their reverting to emotional riot inciting rhetoric which does damage to this great country. We are Americans. We do not have to hear about color, previous injustices and the like. We need a positive approach of all Americans being equal in moving ahead to solve some of the other problems which we now face.

Talking to the Russians

Actually, it is my belief that the less Obama talks with any other world

leader the better off we are. Remember the open microphone incident when

Obama told the Russian ambassador to tell Putin that after the election he

would be able to proceed with actions that would likely be viewed as treason

and otherwise could have caused him to lose the second term election. Obama

has already indicated that after he was reelected that he would proceed with

the destruction of America and any other acts of treason he could envision.

Obama is a disaster at foreign policy overall even if he did partially

reverse course in Iraq to follow the blue print from previous

administrations as initiated by Reagan.




However, with a true American leader who is actually loyal to America, I

agree with your viewpoint that talking is preferred over posturing as long

as you know how to say no as Reagan did in Iceland when negotiating with

Gorbachev. Reagan's "Neht" that horrified our State Department, was the

start of finally negotiating from strength rather than contemptible weakness

as Democrats always do when representing the interests of America.




Certainly John McCain is a total disaster as a Senator. He has more than

disgraced his distinguished military service with his enabling the liberals

in destroying America. I would give McCain the benefit of doubt that his

actions are from lack of understanding of elementary economics, basic

freedom, our Constitution, or an understanding of the forces he is enabling

that are systematically destroying us. However, because of his power, his

actions are destructive never the less.




Actually, the rhetoric about strengthening our Military is a joke given the

massive efforts to unilaterally disarm and weaken America. If history

repeats itself, this will once again cause America to be attacked. However,

the real federal funds are being spent purchasing enough hollow point

bullets (outlawed for use by the Military) for Homeland Security to kill

every man woman and child in America at least 3 times over. The NSA will be

able to provide intelligence as to which citizens are a threat.

Iraq - Failed Nationbuilding

Open email to Congress:

Dear Members of Congress,
    The Washington Times says security inside Iraq is unveiling at an alarming pace, and Al Qaeda terrorists there aren't just pulling the thread; they are setting it on fire. More than 1000 Iraqs were killed in bombings and shootings last month, making July the deadliest month since violence between Sunni and Shiite Moslems peaked from 2006 to 2008, the United Nations says.
    You and your predecessors are responsible for our spending $2 trillion on the Iraq war http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/iraq-war-cost-more-than-2-trillion_n_2875493.html. This is $6300 per person or $25,200 per family of four. Note that a family can get quite a good start on giving a college education to one of its members for that amount.
    More importantly, it is now clear that our war with Iraq was a waste of money. Saddam Hussein in Iraq was battling Iran, and they pretty much had a draw. We decided to intervene, with the ultimate result that we now have spent a tremendous amount of money to aid in Iraqis killing each other, while Iran goes about its merry way possibly developing an atomic weapon. Consider also that we had no significant interest in the Iraqi/Iranian conflict. If we had been after their oil or were protecting ourselves from invasion, it would've been another matter, but there was no logical reason reason why we should have ever attacked Iraq.
    I understand that some people like war. It's exciting and adventurous. I generally call these people warmongers, because in their liking of war, they try to get other people to like it and fund it. John McCain is a typical example. But the nature of war is destructive. It destroys developed property and kills people. That is a drain of resources which inhibits a civilization from developing a better lifestyle. Two examples of civilizations which wasted their resources on war were the American Indians and central Africans.
    I strongly suggest you collectively try to look at war in a different light than you have in the past. Wars will always exist, but we do not necessarily need to be a part of them. Unless we have a clear need for a defensive operation, there is generally no need for military engagements. If we see Al Qaeda training camps and know that they intend to do us damage, we cab bomb them out of existence without declaring a war. Similarly, on a more national basis, if we are quite certain that a country such as North Korea or Iran definitely mean to do us harm, we can take the initiative of obliterating their warmaking facilities. We did it during an existing war with Japan, and there is every justification for preempting an obvious attack by a stated enemy.

Illegal Immigrant Problem

Open email to Congress:

Dear Members of Congress,
    The Washington Times says that five dozen immigration rights activists picketed outside Rep. Frank R. Wolf’s Herndon office Wednesday, demanding he vote for a bill that would extend citizenship rights to 11 million illegal immigrants — a scene that is being repeated outside countless Republican congressional district offices this summer. With chances for a bill seemingly slipping in Washington, the activists have vowed to take their fight to lawmakers at home during the congressional recess. They have vowed to hold meetings, stage protest marches and make themselves heard by lawmakers and the voters who elected them.
    My first reaction to this is that you deserve the heat. You let in these 11 million illegals, and now you have to deal with it. If you had taken some action earlier, you could have at least cut down on the number and had less problem.
    With that chastisement out of the way, what's to do about it now? Nothing. There will always be people wanting free stuff, and since they have plenty of time and energy not being required to work, they are in a position to wave and scream the loudest. The more those people you have previously encouraged, the louder will be the din. However, this is not to say that you should agree to their demands. The people of Greece and Spain have conducted similar demonstrations for free stuff in the past year, because they were previously led into the situation by their governments, similar to what you have done. But, they have found that there must be a stopping point. This is it for us!

Rep. Neugebauer (Texas) on Debt Limit and Agency Regulations

Open email to representative Neugebauer (Texas):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I read your newsletter and have the following comments:

DEBT LIMIT
    You said that as a small business owner you were always very careful about taking on new debt, and you were surprised that in Washington new debt seems to be taken on by our representatives with very little thought. The obvious difference is that when you took on debt as a small business owner, it was your money. Our Washington representatives deal with other people's money. Since the difference leads to a fundamental difference in emotion, we really have to find some way to have the Washington representatives feel more accountable. I have no immediate solutions, but it is an ongoing problem, which should be faced.
    Congratulations on your introducing an amendment requiring a two-thirds vote majority in order to increase the national debt. It will not be popular with those who like the idea of spending other people's money without any particular accountability, but at least your action brings to their attention that their overspending is certainly not appreciated by all.

AGENCY REGULATIONS
    Hooray! Now you're talking! You said that last week, you signed on as a co-sponsor of Rep. Michael McCaul’s (R-TX) One In, Two Out Act. This commonsense bill requires federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations before putting any new ones into effect.
    Let's not let this one die on the vine! Push! push! push! It involves the essence of a growing economy.
    Also consider going one step further. Have Congress repeal two laws for every new one they pass.

Sen. Cruz on Obamacare and US Sovereignty

Open email to Sen. Cruz (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    I have read your newsletter and watched your YouTube presentation on Obamacare. I have the following comments:

OBAMACARE
    I agree with your strategy to neutralize Obamacare by including a specific defunding statement in the Continuing Resolution, which is necessary for continued total government funding. In order for that amendment to stick to the Continuing Resolution, it will require both Democrats and Republicans to agree that Obamacare should be made defunct, and that agreement will only come from a massive request by the American people to their respective representatives. I liked your YouTube presentation. It was right on target.
    While Obamacare has appeal to some voters, those persons seriously interested in the continuance of the United States as "the land of the free and the home of the brave" must defeat Obamacare. We will see how many of those there are in comparison with those who are interested only in short-term benefits, without regard to long-term sustainability. Notice the analogy to environmental considerations, with its associated husbanding of natural resources.
    There is no doubt that if we have the full application of Obamacare, it will kill jobs, significantly increase our budget leading to annual deficits, which will negatively affect government borrowing capacity, and eventually lead to bankruptcy with the resulting desolation of the country, as we now see in Detroit.

SOVEREIGNTY    Thank You for your vote against Samantha Power as US Ambassador to the United Nations.. As you point out, Ms. power is an internationalist, not an American. When she says, " "Giving up a pinch of sovereignty" to organizations such as the UN is good for the United States and our security", she clearly shows that she wishes to blend the United States in with the other countries of the United Nations. She does not want to continue recognizing America as a unique entity and world leader. The only consistency is that Pres. Obama holds the same views, which is why he nominated her. Recall that Pres. Obama may have some basis for his views, because he was not raised as an American. His development as a child was all done in foreign countries.

Vote Against American Chemical Society Recommendations

Dear Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    The American Chemical Society is urging its members to contact their federal Senators asking them to support two pieces of legislation and a policy. I have objection to all three ACS recommendations as follows:
    Support The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act
    Please send a letter to your U.S. Senators urging them to support this legislation. This bill would reduce barriers for private sector users and drive adoption of efficiency technologies make the US energy independent, reduce emissions, and foster job creation.
    I urge you to vote AGAINST this bill. We do not need another law telling citizens that they must save money through efficiency. US citizens are smart enough to take advantage of potential savings without government mandates.
    Support The Helium Stewardship Act of 2013
    Please send a letter to your Senators urging them to support S.783, the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013.
    I urge you to vote AGAINST this bill as I have previously done in a earlier writing. Helium has strategic military significance for long-range rocket insulation and for guidance systems in air to air missiles. We need to keep the government reserve. In addition recent commercial production of helium has alleviated temporary shortages and more production is likely to come online. 

    Protect Science Funding
    An alert to urge congress to work towards a bipartisan agreement and to forge a long-term solution to the current fiscal crisis.
    This likely refers to the long history of government research grants to universities. Those grants have two deficiencies; are usually intended to support a government ideology or many times are without merit as to any projection of practical significance to the American public.
    I have said for several years and continue to say, "Get rid of the grants. Private industry will arrange with universities any necessary research work of significance.

Al Qaeda Terrorism Threat a Farce?

     The Washington Times says the US Government intercepted a message between senior al Qaeda operatives that is the most serious terrorism threat in years. The State Department closed 20 US embassies and consulates over the weekend. However in a converse report, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, “This is not an indication of a new threat stream, merely an indication of our commitment to exercise caution and take appropriate steps to protect our employees, including local employees, and visitors to our facilities”.
Who am I to believe? An unspecified government source says there has been an intercepted Al Qaeda message of high terrorism significance, while the State Department implies they know nothing about it and is merely taking normal precautions. The State Department hasn't taken "normal precautions" previously and certainly not with respect to Benghazi. Why now?
Notice that the US government agency for the interception of the terrorist message was not mentioned, nor was the context of the message itself revealed. The Washington times goes on to quote numerous politicians concerning their agreement that the terrorist threat is real and that we need to take appropriate steps. This implies everybody seems to know about the context of the message, except me. The interesting thing is that the politicians go on to say that Al Qaeda is trying to drive us out of the Middle East and that we must resist rigorously. Why now? Al Qaeda has been trying to do that for years. Frankly, I don't think we should be there. Not because Al Qaeda wants us out, but because the general Arab public doesn't want us there. As long as we are there as undesirables, we on nation building, which process has a dismal record.
However, going go back to the matter of the Al Qaeda message interception, notice that the National Security Agency (NSA) could not have been involved. According to NSA, they only look at the telephone numbers and the times of calls from those numbers in all of the information they obtain from the telephone companies. That being the case, they could not possibly have related any telephone number to a suspected terrorist. It is prohibited by their own admission. If that is the case, and the message was interrupted by other than NSA telephone records, then that is the information source we should be pursuing with respect to terrorism, not the collection of telephone records about average citizens by the NSA.

White House/Middle East Policy Duplicity

    Please take the following items in the basic chronological order in which they are listed:

    Two years ago Osama bin Laden was killed, and President Obama stated that Al Qaeda was no longer a significant terrorist threat to the US.
    A year ago, four of our government employees were killed in Benghazi, Libya. A first explanation from the White House was that this was a result of rioting caused by publication of an anti-Muslim document. As the year rolled by, it now becomes clearer that this was a result of an Al Qaeda operation. The White House has not yet admitted this.
    A few months ago, the National Security Agency (NSA) was accused of improperly collecting average citizens' telephone records, which has no obvious connection with uncovering the identity of potential terrorists (Al Qaeda not specifically mentioned). The NSA program has caused considerable criticism, because of its violation of citizen Fourth Amendment rights. NSA has had considerable difficulty in justifying continuation of its program in the face of lacking real justification.
    Yesterday, the White House shut down 22 embassies and consulates in the Middle East, because of generally stated but unspecified terrorism threats. Those embassies/consulates should have been shut down quite a while ago, because citizens of those countries generally have not wanted the presence of American government within their borders. I have always been taught that if someone doesn't want you in their presence, you should leave. While it has not been directly mentioned in the embassy/consulate shutdowns, it is clear to me that the intent is to generate fear within the American public concerning an increase in terrorist activities, and likely contribute toward public support in continuing the NASA surveillance program involving innocent civilians record surveillance.

Stop Talks with Russia?

    Russia granted temporary asylum Thursday to fugitive National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden. According to the Washington Times, this prompted President Obama to threaten boycotting a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The incident also caused Sen. John McCain (AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), to issue a joint statement saying “Now is the time to fundamentally rethink our relationship with Putin’s Russia,” They called on the Obama administration to push for expanded missile defense programs in Europe and to “move expeditiously on another round of NATO expansion, including the Republic of Georgia,” which Russia invaded several years ago.    This is ridiculous! Are we going to let warmongers John McCain and apparently Lindsey Graham push us into a war with Russia over a minor incident of whether one person gets asylum in one country or another?
    In addition, is that incident justification to stop the top leaders of each of two major countries from talking with each other? It seems to me that when such an incident develops, conversation should be increased in order to determine the real basis for the difference of opinion. It is a well-known and accepted procedure that when you have something against someone else, you meet with that person and try to resolve the situation. Only stupid people or those extremely egocentric will jeopardize a relationship on the basis of not knowing the reasons for another person's position.

Political Abuses of the Internal Revenue Service

Open email to Rep. Darrell Issa (CA) House Oversight Committee Chairman:
   
Dear Chairman Issa,

    The Washington Times gave you some recent coverage on your continuing investigation of abuses by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). You are accusing the IRS of showing political discrimination for approval of certain IRS benefits by various organizations. It was mentioned that your investigation appears to be considered by Pres. Obama as a phony scandal. Treasury Secretary Lew, under which the IRS operates, appears to be using that position as a basis for not cooperating with you in your investigation. There was mention of your having sent a subpoena for more agency documents. 

    I take this opportunity to indicate to you my full support of your position on this investigation, in order to obtain a clear understanding of exactly what the IRS was up to, so that changes can be made to avoid such inequities in the future. Your receipt of only 3% of documents is surely not an indication of full IRS cooperation, and any claim of IRS stonewalling seems to be completely justified.

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

National Security Agency (NSA) Abuses

Open email to Deputy Attny. Gen. Cole, Senators Leahy, Wyden, Durbin, and Rep. Sellsenbrenner:

Dear Deputy Cole, Senators Leahy, Wyden, and Durban and Rep Sellsenbrenner,
    I am directing this email to you, because you were each mentioned in a recent article by the Washington Times covering various questions and disagreements concerning the collection of citizen telephone data by the National Security Agency (NSA).
    The basis of the disagreement appears to be a lack of understanding on exactly what the NSA has been doing. It is said that the NASA requires phone companies to turn over data for every phone call made in the U.S., including which numbers were dialed and the length of the conversations. It was also reported that NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander said data-collection does not include information on where the calls were made on mobile phones, or the names or addresses of individual telephone subscribers.
    While I am not an expert in data processing, I have some experience with it. If I collect a large number of telephone numbers of calls that have been made, all I have is a mixed compilation of telephone numbers. I can sort them by area code and likely by local municipality, and can then count the number of calls made from each area and each municipality. If there are repeat calls, I can then also count the number of calls repeated. However, if to each telephone number a time is related, I then know that for each of my telephone numbers listed the call was made at a specific indicated time. That's all I know. I don't know who made the call, who they called, or the subject of the conversation in addition, my area code information is valid only for land lines, for cell phones, my area code information is useless, since the call might have been placed in any location where the person holding the cell phone happened to be.
    This all means to me that I am completely ignorant concerning the finer points of telephone surveillance or the NSA is trying to hoodwink me. I suspect the latter. The telephone companies have substantially more information on each telephone call than just the fact that a number made a telephone call at a specific time. It is likely that that information is going to the NSA. While the NSA may honestly be claiming that they have not gone further into the detail than just the telephone number and the time of call, that seems unlikely to me, because the ancillary information is available to the NSA, and without that ancillary information, all of the other records are useless in any attempts to uncover a potential terrorist.
    With all that said, I encourage each of you to continue your investigations of what the NSA is doing and the techniques that it is using. The claim will always be made by the NSA that this is confidential information, which if publicly released, would be of great value to terrorist organizations. I'm sure that has a modicum of truth, but like anything else done by government agencies, the claim will be abused. I'm sure that you can collect substantial information of non-confidential nature, wherein you can come to a conclusion as to whether the NSA is violating the Fourth Amendment of civilian rights, as I strongly suspect it is.
    However, I am not claiming that the NSA should be shut down, nor any other similar extreme measure. Citizens are entitled to a program of protection from terrorism from their government, and I am sure this can be accomplished without contradicting the citizen's Fourth Amendment rights. I have mentioned in a previous message the obvious ways to determine potential terrorists, which are messages from foreign governments, terrorist organization websites, CIA agents, etc. Each of these then leads to a suspicion of wrongdoing, on which further investigative techniques can be used through issuance of warrants. Simply put, I find it unnecessary to usurp the privacy of the average US citizen in order to protect him.
    As previously mentioned, government agencies routinely have a tendency for abuse. All of these agencies have been set up by Congress with appointment to the President and his Administration to operate each of the programs. However, Congress obviously sees the fallacy of ignoring any subsequent responsibility and generally has established an oversight committee. Both the Senate and the House probably have an oversight committee with respect to activities of the NSA. If they do not, those committees should be established for routine attention to NSA activities. In this relationship, any confidential and secretive information being used by the NSA and which could be deleterious if known to the enemy, should be discussed with the oversight committee. If employees of the NSA are considered good security risks, there is no reason to consider that Senators and House members should be any poorer risks.
    Please keep up the good work of investigation to your complete satisfaction that you are familiar with all NSA activities. If necessary, change the law and be sure to set up the oversight committees, if they do not now exist.