Government Shutdown Presents an Opportunity

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz:

Dear Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    The federal government shutdown is imminent. The Republicans appear to want continued operations in deference to an apparent will of the American people. The Democrats want to use a government shutdown as a lever to defeat increasing influence of conservative Tea Party members of Congress. It is thought that the only way to maintain government operations is to have a favorable vote on a Continuing Resolution.
    I believe we have been collectively looking at this in the wrong way. Much of the American public wants a smaller, less powerful federal government, but also wants a government that is stable, particularly from a financial viewpoint. The obvious question to you, as the people's representatives, do you want to maintain power in an overspending government that is doomed to collapse, or do you wish to follow the better judgment of the people's will and have a government which is smaller in numbers and spending, but is actually more powerful in continuity?    If the second option is your choice, I suggest the following strategy:    Agree with the Senate Democrats that you also want a government shutdown. Remember that while a government shutdown is extreme, is at least in the direction of the American public's will. In agreeing to the government shutdown, you have have in mind that you will NEVER agree to a Continuing Resolution.
    What you will agree to is a continuing operation to restart government piece by piece. The first proposal of the House to the Senate should be to fund the IRS, so that revenues can be collected. Let the Senate vote on that, and we will see whether it will be able to justify declining. If the Senate approves, the House next proposes that the Military, Medicare, and Social Security operations be funded. In that operation, there is an opportunity to start using percentages for operational funding compared to the previous year, but not a cut in benefits to recipients. It is likely that the Senate Democrats will be unable to convince themselves that an obsession to power is possible, if they vote to not fund those three operations.
    Recall that there is no way that a Continuing Resolution for total government funding should ever be proposed. Piece by piece, the government can be put back together at a lower employment and expenditure level that has previously existed. Some departments can be eliminated completely by never proposing their funding. My suggestion is to never fund the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. The Justice Department should be funded completely. The Environmental Protection Agency should be funded at half its previous budget.

Funding the Government

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    This email concerns funding the government by both the House and the Senate passing a Continuing Resolution.
    The house has already passed its portion, which includes defunding Obamacare.
    The Washington Times says the Senate will likely vote Friday to cut off debate, will approve an amendment that would restore funding to Obamacare, pass the bill and then send it back to the House.
    This is not exactly correct. As you know, whenever there is a difference between the House and Senate versions of a bill, the two branches meet to resolve the difference.
    In this case, the question will be whether the House and Senate will uniformly pass the bill with or without the Obamacare defunding provision. Either the Senate can change its position and agree to the defunding, or the House can change its position and remove the defunding provision.
    I strongly urge you and other members of the House to maintain a strong position on including Obamacare defunding in the Continuing Resolution. Leave it up to the Senate to change his position, and if it will not do so, let the chips fall where they may.
    However compromise to defeat has been the essence of the Republican Party operation for a number of years, and I am sure that there are many Republicans in the House, who will either cave on the defund provision or perhaps go for a compromise. The compromise could be to review repeal of the Obamacare law after the 2014 election and again, if necessary, after the 2016 election. In addition, the Continuing Resolution should contain a provision to reduce government spending by at least 10% per year, on top of the sequester already in place.
    I will look to see how you individually perform in this action.

Advice to Sen. Cornyn (TX)

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,    Let me start by saying that you have generally done a good job for the people of Texas as their US Sen. I note that your procedural operations through the years has been based on a generally conservative philosophy with compromise. You have been pragmatic in recognizing that Democrats have received a voting majority, and you as a Republican are generally outvoted in the Senate. On that basis, you have have thought you are relegated to raising a weak voice in conservative defense but are generally doomed to conservative defeat by being outnumbered by Senate Democrats. I have generally viewed your operational procedure as being similar to Sen. Hutchison's, except that you have demonstrated a greater cognizance of problems. These operational procedures have been satisfactory for many years, as your conservative constituents acted as the great silent majority, with no suggestions of how you should be doing business in the Senate.
    That has changed radically. We now have a general verbal uprising in Texas, and I note an increasing dissatisfaction with your policy of cooperating with Democrats. The time has come for demonstrating more bravery. Remember the Alamo? The defenders knew that they had no chance against Santa Anna's Army, but they bravely fought on with vigor to the last man. They lost that battle, but clearly made the point that the Alamo battle was not the end. It actually contributed to the downfall of Mexican control of the Southwest, for which reason we have Texas.
    May I strongly suggest that you give up the attitude of cooperation with Democrats and fight them with all of your vigor. Up until recently, there has been no example of how this might be done. But, Sen. Cruz replaced Sen. Hutchison with a radical change in philosophy of combat. Sen. Cruz is an Alamo example. He will apparently fight to the end on seemingly impossible causes, but in the long run he will make his point, and likely achieve success.
    Join with Sen. Cruz in his programs, and with the combination, you will collectively be much more effective in bringing to the people of Texas what they want and need.

Hillary Clinton and the Chicken House

Open email to Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee:

Dear Chairman Issa,
    The Washington Times says the Clinton Administration's Investigative Board gave Hillary Clinton advice and a "heads-up" on its Benghazi investigation findings.
A farmer was losing chickens. He needed to investigate what was happening, so we could put a stop to it. A mother fox came to him and said she would take on the job of the investigation, to which the farmer stupidly agreed.
The next night after the agreement, father fox was raiding the chicken house for more chickens. There was a little commotion and mother fox, who was on watch, noticed a light go on in the farmhouse. She immediately notified father fox, who hightailed it out of there. When the farmer appeared at the chicken house with a shotgun, all seemed to be in order, except he was missing one more chicken.

Get Rich as an Elected Official?

To Political Associates:

Dear Political Associates,
    One of our Associate referred me to OpensSecrets..org, which periodically publishes the net assets of House of Representatives members.
    Two years ago, our Rep. Randy Neugebauer (TX) had reported net assets of between $8 million and $20 million. He was 40th in line in the House.
    Those who are true Americans do not deny that anybody should have an opportunity to be rich, as is Rep. Neugebauer. After all, this is the land of opportunity. The only question is whether elected officials, such as House Representatives are using government as an opportunity to get rich. There are also other ramifications.
    US history reports that our founding fathers were generally well-off, as they started in the War of Independence. In the subsequent War and development of the United States with Constitution, is reported that most of them became poor. They sacrificed for their country. We can argue about whether this is true, but at least it makes a good idealistic story about how things should be. In our present society, are politicians sacrificing for the good of the country or they are are they essentially devoted to making themselves rich?
    I think most of us will agree that complete sacrificing for the good of the country's a little too altruistic. There should be some personal benefit in any job, including being a member of the House of Representatives. However, there should be some sort of balance. As I daily review the operations of our Representatives and Senators, I have the distinct feeling that such balance does not exist. Most actions that these representatives take seem to be directly or indirectly related to their personal benefit. Is that the reason why some of us think this country is going down a rat hole?
    One difficulty in becoming rich. Is that there is no stopping point. Competent people who are highly motivated to become rich can in the course of several years accumulate assets of $1 million, without having involved themselves in nefarious schemes. The million dollar asset person lives in a reasonable lifestyle and would appear to have few financial worries. But, the record shows that those people go on to further accumulation of 2, 4, 6, 8 and $10 million for no practical reason. I strongly suspect that such force is strongly working in our House and our Senate to the disadvantage of the country, and I'm not sure what to do about it.
    For those socialists and communists who will quickly jump up and say that's why we should be changing the government, I reply that the record of socialistic and communistic government's are no better. The only difference is that there are fewer people at the top pursuing the interminable "get rich" approach to the disadvantage of the people.
    No. We must continue with our present form of government. As bad as it has developed, it is still the best in the world. The only thing that I can suggest is for better heads than mine to consider how we can start to limit the pursuit of richness in our elected officials, and encourage them to concentrate more on further developing the land of opportunity, rather than the land of restriction and get rich quick in government . 

Sen. Cornyn's (TX) Confusion on Syria

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I have read your latest paper concerning your position with regard to a US military attack on Syria.
    You said your position is that a U.S. attack that allows Assad to remain in power with a large stockpile of chemical weapons would not promote U.S. national security interests, and such an intervention could easily become a disaster. You are concerned that President Obama took a hard stance against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons and then failed to back it up with concrete steps, You are also concerned that launching a half-hearted, ineffectual attack would do nothing to uphold America’s credibility.
    Let's take your points one by one.
    In the preamble of your article, you bemoaned the numbers of Syrians who have been killed in the Syrian Civil War. May I suggest that one of the standard ancillary aspects of war is the killing of people. By referring to this as emotionally objectionable, you are playing to the compassion of the American public. Compassion is an emotional reaction, and physical reactions on the basis of such compassion are usually misguided. As a Senator, you should not be involved in such manipulation.
    Then you said that any US attack allowing Pres.  Assad to remain in power with a large stockpile of chemical weapons would not promote US national interests. Your implication is that Assad should be deposed. What basis do you have for that position? Is it really any of your business? Then you are concerned that somehow a large stockpile of chemical weapons involved US national interests. What US national interests? We have none in Syria. If they want to gas each other, or one side has a preferred position on gassing, what business is it of yours?
    You are concerned that Pres. Obama took a hard stance against Assad's use of chemical weapons and then backtracked, which projects to the world a poor picture of America's credibility. Are you concerned primarily with appearances? Would you have preferred that Pres. Obama launch an immediate attack on Syria, which in effect would be a declaration of war and lead to substantially more killing? I don't know about your regard for posturing, but mine is that if you're wrong, admit it. While I am normally opposed to most actions of Pres. Obama, he did the right thing in this case. He has not yet started another war for the US in Syria.

    You then went on to say that you offered Senate Amendment 3260 to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13 NDAA; P.L. 112-239), which prohibits the use of funding for the U.S. government to enter into any further contracts or business agreements with Rosoboronexport,  

the Russian state-owned arms broker. There are two things wrong with this. First of all, you are denying our military from ordering from the Russians any equipment which it feels may be superior to our own. Secondly, you are meddling with a boycott of a Russian company on the basis of what the Russians are doing with their neighbor, Syria.
    Finally, you said you cannot vote to authorize the use of US military force against Syria at this time. This surprises me, after all you had previously said about reasons we should be involved. May I suggest that in future you take a position of action on any subject and then give reasons why you take the position. On Syria, you took a position of not acting against Syria, while you gave substantially poor reasons why we should be acting against Syria. Is that weasel wording?

Ethics Violations

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Members of Congress,
For those who have not kept up with the shenanigans of the Obama Administration, this concerns the investigation of the Internal Revenue Service by Rep. Darrell E Issa. The basic issue is a matter of tax exemption for certain organizations. Rep. Issa is investigating a claim that the IRS has discriminated against the Tea Party in allowing tax exemptions.
The Washington Times now says IRS employees were “acutely” aware in 2010 that President Obama wanted to crack down on conservative organizations, such as Tea Party groups. That conclusion comes from the Issa investigation, which found two IRS officials as saying the Tea Party applications were singled out in the targeting program.
The report also said that the investigators did not find evidence that IRS employees received orders from politicians to target the Tea Party and other agency officials deny overt bias or political motives. But, the report also says that the IRS was at least taking cues from political leaders and designed special policies to review Tea Party applications, including dispatching some of them to Washington to be vetted by headquarters. 
In any government or private organization, middle management employees know what the boss wants, without receiving specific orders. If a middle management employee does not pick up on the boss's hints and cues and give specific carry-out orders to underlings, he is considered by the boss to be insensitive and must be terminated  or at least transferred to a lower paying job. Notice that the smart boss always shields himself by never giving direct orders, but all subsequent employees fall in line, because they want to hold their jobs.
In the IRS/Tea Party situation, the boss is Pres. Obama; one middle management employee is Lois Lerner; and the underlings are those persons who actually designed the special policies to review Tea Party applications.
Is this process illegal? The answer is "no", not in itself. However, if a law is broken in the subsequent operation, only the underlings and the middle management person are susceptible to prosecution. The boss is almost invariably untouched, because he has given no direct orders.
Will Lois Lerner and the persons  who designed the special policies be prosecuted? Not likely, because no specific law has been broken. What about Pres. Obama? He will go untouched, as is usually the case with the boss, and no law has been broken.
Does that mean that the whole IRS targeting operation was perfectly legitimate. *Yes", from a legal point of view, but "no" from an ethics point of view. Then we are back to Obama Administration shenanigans, which continue to reduce the public's perception of him as a person of quality unfit to be President. Remember Pres. Nixon? What about Lois Lerner and the underlings? Lois will be considered as a political hack. The underlings will be considered as cogs in a machine that is doing something wrong.  Is that quality government? The public will decide.
Why have I directed this message to Congress? For the simple reason that Congress is a part of the United States government and any negative reflection on any part of government is disadvantageous to the public esteem of Congress.
Then Rep. Issa's investigation has merit in that it tends to differentiate Congress from the Obama Administration, and this and others like it such as Benghazi need to be continued. Perhaps those investigations will tend to improve public appreciation for Congress, which is now at a low level. If also in these investigations Congress can uncover any illegal operation or find enough ethics violations, combined with a reduced number of Democrats in the Congress, impeachment of Pres. Obama before his term of office expires is not without possibility, as slight as it may be.

Sen. Cruz (TX) on Various Issues

Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    I tried to read your Newsletter this week but couldn't get it all.
    I was especially impressed with your prologue, which said that the purpose of the Constitution was to act as a chain on government. Unfortunately that chain has been weakened link by link through the years, until we now have an abusive and tyrannical government.
    I also like your three points on American Foreign Policy, but I was left a little hanging, since it was not clear to me what your position was or is on the Syrian situation. As you know from my previous messages to you, Syria is not in the direct interest of the United States and we should not be involved in any way. I tried to call up your talk at the Heritage Foundation, and although I have an "account" at Facebook, including a password, I was unable to hear your comments.
    Similarly, I was unable to hear you with Sean Hannity on Fox news. However, your attempt to defund Obamacare is strongly applauded, and I liked your Fact Number presentation.
    I also liked your continuing efforts to unearth facts about the Benghazi situation, but I'm a little surprised that you offered a resolution which you know was doomed to failure in the Senate, because of the majority of Democrats.

Security Checks for Government Installations

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    Over the past two days, the TV news has been full of the massacre at the Washington Navy Yard . The Washington Times says that In a mass shooting sending shock waves through the nation’s capital, the FBI and police were piecing together what led a Navy civilian contractor to kill 12 employees Monday at the Washington Navy Yard and injure several others.
    I have one short comment. I heard an official say that background checking on employees is deficient, because the government does not have sufficient funding
    This has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements yet, when one considers that the government spends beyond its means year after year and now has a debt of many trillions of dollars!

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on Various Issues

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I have read/heard your Newsletter, which I note was a video this week. Congratulations on using the best technology to communicate to your constituents. However, I suggest you take care to not let razzle-dazzle be confused with positive action. Your video covers your travel stops at six locations with a different topic involving each location. For those who have not seen the video, I review these as follows:

WEST 
   We recall that this was the location of the horrendous ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) explosion. Your point to the people at this location was that it is important what we do in reaction to such disasters. Presumably, you were congratulating them and encouraging them on their self efforts at recovery. You did not say anything that you were doing to avoid such disastrous occurrences at other locations in the future.

EL PASO
    Your main point was that funding should be provided to control child sex trafficking. Amen to a degree! As we well know, throwing money at a problem does not automatically solve it. In many cases, it just confuses the situation. You did not say how you were going to get funding, if you really believe that's necessary. But, I believe you missed the main point, which is that you should be applying pressure to the Justice Department to do the job of controlling child sex trafficking.

RIO GRANDE
    Your point here was that we should have border control. Great idea, but what's new? Congress has been kicking this around for quite some time now, and I don't see that you have personally accomplished anything to give us the border control we need. You well know that the basic problem of lack of border control is because the Obama Administration does not want it. Why do you let Obama continue to have his way on that? Does he have more power than the United States Congress?

KILLEEN
    While I don't recall that there have been any major events of killings at Killeen, you related this location to the Fort Hood massacre by the supposed psychologist. Your implication was that we have to stop that. You did not mention yesterday killings at the Washington Naval Yard, but you can be excused for that, since it happened after publication of your video. We agree with your emotional thrust that these killings are abominable, but what are you doing about them? I have given few suggestions above, but I am tempted on this one. You need to arrange for tighter security clearances, including serious background investigation for various employees at military installations, greater security at the gate posts including inspection of all materials as well as personnel entering the post, and a more speedy trial for execution for anyone involved in an attempt at any form of destruction, whether it be personnel or property.

AUSTIN
    You mentioned cracking down on Medicaid fraud, but you did not mention whether and how you plan to do this. Any fraud is proportional to the size of an operation. Reduce Medicaid and you automatically reduce its fraud. Notice that we are not denying minimal health benefits to the underprivileged, who already have them through ready access to emergency rooms of hospitals.

SOUTH TEXAS
    At this location you concentrated on promoting economic growth, particularly through energy production. Amen! Right on!. However, you did not say how you intend to aid that process.

Rep. Neugebauer on Obamacare and The Farm Bill

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear representative Neugebauer,
    I have read your latest Newsletter and am unhappy.
    Our objective has been to cripple Obamacare by defunding it. As I see it, your proposal kicks the can down the road.
    The Continuing Resolution (CR) is standard operating procedure for funding government. In digital terms, it is the default.
    Your proposed bill with 42 supporters attempts to protect savings from the sequester and prioritizes funding for veterans and national defense. In effect, you are watering down the issue, and your proposed bill has little chance of ever seeing the light of day. Pres. Obama plays hardball, and with this proposal, he will knock you out of the pitcher's box.
    Your best bet is to try to get the amendment to defund Obamacare onto the Continuing Resolution. As I recall, this is Sen. Cruz's strategy. If you and your associates try to pull off this alternative, you weaken the opportunity for Sen. Cruz's strategy to be effective.
    You need the defund Obamacare amendment on the Continuing Resolution. If the Continuing Resolution then does not pass, either because of the Senate or the President, they will be responsible for the government shutdown. The White House and the Senate Democrats will claim loudly to the contrary, and it will become a shouting match on who did it. Republicans have traditionally been poor on the shouting, as compared to the much more vociferous Democrats, who also use the technique of personal attacks. Therefore, you not only need a defund Obamacare amendment on the Continuing Resolution, but you need to be prepared to out-shout the Democrats, if there is a shutdown
    if you cave on this issue, you will have accomplished nothing of significance. Sequestration has done very little with respect to balancing the budget, and we daily increase the national debt by large amounts. If you can't face up to hardball on defunding Obamacare, what chance do you have of saving the country from financial disaster, as it continues to spend and eventually arrive at the position of having no borrowing credit. Please let remit me remind you that the Soviet Union went bust, because it outspent its capability to finance its operations.. The Soviet Union collapsed down to Russia. Is your strategy to collapse the United States down only to the state of Texas?


    Conversely, you have done a good job in separating the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (Snap) from the farm programs of the Farm Bill. This puts the spotlight on another "Entitlement Program", which is well-intentioned to satisfy the compassion of the American taxpayer. However, we all know now that programs, such as SNAP, primarily weaken the will and determination of the average American citizen, who accepts such entitlement. As you continue to point out fraud and abuse, in the SNAP program, please do not forget to include what I have just said concerning the weakening of resolve and independence of American citizens.

Who Has the Right to Engage the US in War?

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    The Washington Times says the Obama Administration and Russia reached a deal Saturday to compel Syria to account for and eventually destroy its chemical weapons arsenal, leaving open the possibility that the UN could authorize sanctions or military action for future violations.
    Whew! We are off the hook, at least temporarily! I was shaking in my boots on the possibility of Pres. Obama declaring war on Syria by a military attack. We have had enough stupid wars, and this would have been the leader in stupidity. President Assad of Syria has done nothing to disturb US interests anywhere in the world. What he has done involves his personal handling of an internal Syrian situation, which is none of our business.   
    However, I'm still disturbed. Pres. Obama had us on the brink of war for no justifiable reason, and he could do it again. He says he has every right to take unilateral action on foreign military matters without any consideration of Congress. I personally don't see that anywhere in the Constitution, but perhaps I'm missing something.
    Whether I am right or wrong, Congress must take action to clarify that situation, so that we don't engage in another war through some stupid action by the President. Some might say that a situation may require fast action, which the President could take, while Congress would be too slow. That's not true. Referring to World War II, the Japanese attacked our naval fleet Pearl Harbor on December 6. I'm not sure when the US actually declared war on Japan. It might have been almost immediately by Pres. Roosevelt, but if so, it was not necessary. The attack was over and there was plenty of time for Congress to retaliate with a declaration of war.
    I've said before that war is not a sporting event. By its definition, it is a terrible event. People kill each other, and as I have said separately, that killing should be done by any effective means to eliminate the enemy.
    But now, it is up to Congress, not the President, to define the conditions under which war will be declared by the US. In this consideration, let's also remember that any military attack against a foreign entity is an automatic declaration of war.

Justifiable War

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz (TX):

Dear Rep. and Senators,
    The Washington Times reports that Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri sent out a message referring to 9/11, with a call for more attacks on U.S. soil, aimed at hitting America hard in the pocketbook. The Al Qaeda leader released an audio recording on Thursday, saying America is hardly a “mythical power" and that Islamic holy warriors, or mujahedeen, can surely defeat the nation “on its own soil.”

    What happened to our warmongers, such as John Kerry and John McCain? This is a confirmed declaration of war with a threatened attack(s) on the United States. It also follows 9/11, which al-Zawahri indirectly reminds us killed a few thousand people in New York.
    John Kerry and John McCain have been beating the war drum for the US to attack the Syrian regime, which would be a declaration of war against a supposed enemy which has not committed any attack or threatened any attack on the US. Why the difference? Is it because they like Al Qaeda and don't like Syria? Is it because Syria has fixed land boundaries, similar to Iraq and Afghanistan while Al Qaeda is more distributed among various countries? If any of those answers are yes, we are faced with more stupid judgments in our government.
    It now looks like we can avoid an attack on Syria. Thanks to the Russians, who are cooperating in removing chemical weapons from Syria, which was the major controversy. How about now shifting a little of our belligerence to Al Qaeda?
    Al Qaeda declared war on us some time ago, and we have basically reacted with indifference. Do we have no belief that their declaration of war is real? How much more proof do we need than killing a few thousand Americans in New York?
    I propose that we recognize the declaration of war and attack the enemy where we find them. We can use personal hitmen, drones, and other conventional weapons on training camps, Administrative offices and personal residences. If some civilians are killed in the operation, so be it. They should not have been protecting the enemy leaders or even been in the vicinity. We can start with Ayman al-Zawahri. If our military is incapable of getting him, how about putting a price on his head and let the bounty hunters go after him. As we identify other leaders, we use the same techniques. For people who think this is not a traditional way to conduct war, let me remind you that during World War II, the 10th Mountain Division chased Mussolini north in Italy around Lago Di Garda. He was first caught by Italian patriots, but we tried.
    In war, the object is to kill the enemy. You shoot him in the groin. You shoot them in the head. You blow him up with improvised explosive devices. You bomb him with drones or artillery or rockets. You kill him with poison gas. The only limitation is hydrogen bombs. They cause devastation over too large an area to be effective on a dispersed enemy such as Al Qaeda.
    Let's get Al Qaeda!

Stop White House Regulation of Carbon Fuels

Open Email to Senators Cornyn and Cruz (TX):

Dear Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    Pres. Obama has nominated Ron Binz as Head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Senate must approve his appointment, and this will come up for a vote. I strongly suggest that you vote against Ron Binz' appointment as Head of FERC.
    For those reading this email and perhaps not realizing the significance of an FERC appointment, I include a short explanation.
    The FERC is a REGULATORY AGENCY set up by Congress as part of the Department of Energy (DOE). Among its various activities, Wikipedia says the FERC:
Regulates the transmission and sale of natural gas for resale in interstate commerce
Regulates the transmission of oil by pipelines in interstate commerce
Regulates the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce
Licenses and inspects private, municipal, and state hydroelectric projects
This is powerful control. If the FERC says there will be no pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast, there will be none. If the FERC decides to stop the flow of natural gas through existing pipelines, it can do so. If the FERC decides that the wholesale price of electricity should be increased to allow for the higher cost of using non-carbon fuels, it can do so.
The Obama Administration strategy on US energy is then to appoint Ron Binz to carry out the program of reducing and hopefully eventually eliminating use of carbon fuels. This would be a disastrous occurrence to the pocketbooks of US citizens, and needs to be "nipped in the bud".

continuing resolution Obamacare

Open Email to Sen.'s Cornyn and Cruz (TX):

Dear Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    As you vote for the Continuing Resolution to fund government, please be sure that "defund Obamacare" is included.

The Syrian Conflict Is Not Affect US Interests

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Congress,
    The Washington Times says U.S. intelligence has yet to uncover evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad directly ordered the chemical attacks last month on civilians in a suburb of Damascus, though the consensus inside U.S. agencies and Congress is that members of Mr. Assad’s inner circle likely gave the command.
    Completely irrelevant! It makes no difference whether Assad ordered chemical attacks or even that there were chemical attacks. It is strictly an internal Syrian affair. There is no imminent threat to US property or US citizens There is no threat to Israel, for which we have a responsibility to defend, nor does Syrian action in any way affect international traffic, such as would be the case on closing the Suez Canal.. All in all, We can use the old cliche usually presented by war mongers but in the reverse way. The Syrian conflict does not affect US interests. 

Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Syria and Texas Insurance Companies

Open Email to. Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your this week's Newsletter. Congratulations! We appear to be on the same team for a change.
    On Syria, you said you would vote against any military action. You don’t believe the President has given us any clear objectives for what military action should achieve, and you can’t commit our men and women in uniform to a foreign conflict without a clear mission or end in sight.
While you have the right answer now, your statement is a little weasel-worded in that it implies the President could convince you otherwise. May I remind you that war is not a sporting event to be engaged in merely because you don't like someone or how that someone might be performing his duties in a foreign country. You engage in war when someone is trying to kill you and then you try to kill them first. Neither the Syrian regime nor the Syrian rebels are trying to kill you or me, in which case it is not of our business what they do.
You said you would continue listening and gathering information on Syria. You don't need to do that. The war mongers will be screaming at you if and when there is a an imminent threat to US citizens.
    On Texas insurance companies, you want to expand opportunities for them to operate in other states. Good idea. I only wonder why they previously had the limitation of operating only in Texas. Seems to me that was restraint of trade. Well, better to correct the situation than to let it continue in its incorrect form.

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on Egypt

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your form letter on Egypt. It presumably refers to my generally published email of 8/16 entitled, "US Confused on Egypt".
    In my 8/16 email, I said that 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.
    In your recent form letter, you review the history of the ouster of Presidents Mubarak and Morsi. You then go on to discuss Egyptian politics and finally say that you share my concerns about these events. Lastly, you say you support continued funding to Egypt . Presumably this means to the extent of $2 billion per year and to whatever government is there to receive the money. You say you support this to advance the United States’ interest in regional stability.
    Sen. Cornyn, may I respectfully remind you that to repeat a cliché, we are not the world's policeman. If Egyptians want to argue about who runs the government and kill each other in the argument, it is not our business. And, it only becomes our business if there is a threat to the physical stability of Israel, to which we have a supporting obligation. We also need to keep the Suez Canal open as an international waterway for the transport of oil and other commodities.
    Don't spend the $2 billion on an Egyptian government, in the hope to create Middle East stability, which you must know is futile. Spend the money on US warships, including aircraft carriers and Marines necessary to protect the continued flow of traffic through the Suez Canal and to demonstrate that physical action will be used in any attack on Israel.

Isolate Libya

Open Email to Congress:
   
Dear Congress,
    This message should be more appropriately directed to the Obama Administration, but the Administration has previously demonstrated its ineptitude in handling the situation..
    The Washington Times says that an early Wednesday morning blast rocked Libya's Foreign Ministry building, located in the middle of Benghazi — a one-year reminder of the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate down the road.
    These people have demonstrated their animosity toward the United States by previously killing several of our State Department employees. The present report from the Washington Times indicates that they are also in a state of anarchy.
    This clearly indicates the US should have no official representatives in Libya. The embassy and all consulates should be closed. Americans on private business should be advised to leave the country because of present danger and inability of the US to protect them.

Who Did It?

    The Washington Times quotes Syrian President Assad is saying there is no evidence that he used chemical weapons against his people. The implication of the statement is that he is not denying chemical weapons were used, but that he didn't do it.
    He may be lying or maybe not.
    The Obama administration and Secretary of State John Kerry insist they have ample evidence the Syrian government used Sarin gas in the attack and killed more than 1,400 Syrian civilians.. If that is so, why can't we see the evidence?
    There seems to be little doubt that Sarin was used against a segment of the Syrian people. Assad says he didn't do it. Obama/Kerry says Assad did it.
    Our US rule of law says that anyone is innocent until proven guilty. It seems to me that this ought to also apply to international considerations. If Obama/Kerry have information which would prove Assad's guilt, let's see it. Otherwise, Assad can be considered innocent, and there is no basis for US military attack on him and his government.
    However, I also maintain my position that even if Assad has used chemical weapons against any of his people, it is not of direct US interests and does not justify US instigating a war with President Assad's regime. We are not the world's policeman. The UN was set up for that purpose.

Fearmonger Lindsey Graham on Syria

Open Email to the Senate:
    Fox news quotes Lindsey Graham as saying we could be nuked if we don't act on Syria!
    A stupid statement from a war monger, who has now also become a fear monger.
    There is no basis for such a statement. Who would be doing a nuking? With what facilities? With no anticipation of nuclear retaliation? It doesn't make sense.
    In fact, if you want to carry on the ridiculous, one could also say we could be nuked if we DO act on Syria.
    Do you want to continue allowing one of your fellow Senators to publicize ridiculous statements, which bring discredit to the Senate?

White House pork will not work on Syria

Open Email to Congress:
   
Dear Members of Congress,
   There is public talk that congressional voting on US involvement in the Syrian war is starting to involve the usual political "pork" situation. For those who may read this and are less conversant with political maneuvering, it means that if you do a favor for me, I will do one for you. A specific example would be a White House offer to a specific Sen. that if the votes for US involvement in the Syrian war, he will receive in return some sort of gravy, such as a construction grant to build a bridge going nowhere.
    Let me assure you, Congress, that the public is not so gullible on this situation, as they have in previously been for much less important congressional actions. If you vote for US involvement in the Syrian war, no matter how many local goodies you may hand out to voters, they will not support you for your reelection.

President Obama on Syria

    As Pres. Obama left the Summit Meeting at St. Petersburg, Russia, he also had various comments on the Syrian situation, as reported by the Washington Times.
    President Obama said that he was elected to end wars, not start them. This implies that he had intention of not starting any war to conform with the wishes of the electorate. Since he is now promoting military action against Syria, is he under the impression that an attack on Syria would not be an act of war initiated by the United States?
    He previously said that there would be limited US action against Syria, perhaps sending in a few missiles to designated targets. According to the Washington Times he now seems to have raised the possibility that additional military action — beyond what’s on the table now — may be necessary if Syrian President Bashar Assad uses chemical weapons again. This is at least pragmatic, because as I have said before, when one country attacks
another, there's no way to know what will subsequently develop.    The Times quotes the President as saying that he cast himself as a man who seeks peace but has been thrust into the position of involving the U.S. into another Middle East conflict. That's a ridiculous statement. If he is thrust into the position of involving the US in another Middle East conflict, it is because he has thrust himself into it.
    The only good aspect of The President.s comments is that they likely have hardened the American public position against war with Syria.

    Mr. Obama will address the nation on Tuesday from the White House in a last-ditch attempt to convince lawmakers and the American people that US military action against Syria is necessary. The President is a convincing speaker. Let's hope that the American public is astute enough to not be swayed by hypnotic oratory.

Immigration

Open E-Mail to Senator Cruz (TX):

 

Dear Senator Cruz:

    Thank you for your form letter on immigration.

    In that letter, you said we have a proud history of welcoming immigrants from around the world seeking freedom and prosperity.

    However until recently, we have previously handled immigration in a controlled manner to ascertain that newly admitted immigrants are of the caliber which will contribute to the progress of the US. With recent and current lack of border control, we have lost that opportunity for betterment of our population. While some illegal immigrants have likely come seeking freedom and prosperity, we know that a large number have come for the free goodies of an apparently unreasonably benevolent federal government.

     The recent Senate Immigration bill did not address that problem. You say that you offered several amendments, which would correct the bill, but they were rejected. Therefore, you were forced to vote against the bill in its original form. I congratulate you for your perceptiveness in recognizing fallacy and your attempts to do something about it.

    Fortunately, people are smart enough to recognize that there is quality in people, as well as in manufactured products. Even many illegal immigrants will recognize that the wagon will not move if it is loaded with sitters and there are too few pushers.

    At this stage of our economic development, a large percentage of the voters appear to believe that being a rider is only a temporary condition and that with help from others (government), the riders will soon become pushers. This is an ideological position that has existed from before the time of Karl Marx and has been found wanting in many now destitute countries.

    Perhaps in time a larger proportion of the American public, who are now Democrats/Socialists/Communists, will come to realize that their position is contrary to human nature as made inherent in man by God.

    Meanwhile, please do what you can for continued development of our country. Let the laggards fall by the wayside and take the minimal sustenance benefits our compassion will provide, until such time as they achieve motivation and rise up to join the wagon pushers.

 

More on Syria

Open E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn & Cruz (TX):

Dear Rep.Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn & Cruz,
    An anonymous contributor recently sent me a series of pictures showing the immediate aftermath destruction of the Japanese attack on our naval fleet at Pearl Harbor. The attack was a military force of aggression, which called for an American declaration of war, and which was promptly executed.
    I replied to the anonymous source by making the objective observation that the Japanese attack was superbly executed and completely decimated US naval operations. However, I also made an analogy to the present US consideration of attacking Syria. Immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a Japanese Admiral said the attack may have only awakened a sleeping giant. The essence of his statement is that when you attack someone, you do not know where that attack will lead.
    Anonymous then replied to me in detail, which I believe is worth your consideration. I normally would have added his comment to my blog, but in this case, it seems to deserve separate attention. He said:

"I believe that the comment “I fear we may have awakened a sleeping giant” was actually made by the Japanese Admiral (I believe it was Yamamoto) who was ordered to coordinate and execute the attack.
There is still a lot of speculation/evidence that FDR may have set us up for the attack to drag us into the war that he campaigned against.
In modern times, Obama has concentrated ships of our present day navy in a way that we would be equally vulnerable as we were at Pearl Harbor.

There are a lot of people who are making the argument that Putin may be correct in that the Rebels may have actually carried out the attack in Syria and that Kerry is lying which would imply the same thing about Obama, but finding out may be even more difficult than finding out the truth over Benghazi.
Because both the President and his staff and Secretary Kerry have been such prolific liars their entire career, it will be difficult to ever know the truth about any of this.  But then, can we trust the former head of the KGB, another spy and propaganda organization?   Putin actually sounds more credible which is astounding.   The most likely scenario is that everyone is lying.  The only truth is that some undetermined number of people are being brutally killed and we really cannot change that regardless of who comes out on top and forms the next dictatorship.  Has it not been the liberals who have made fun of and made the repeated argument that people in the middle east cannot handle a Republic type of government in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
This is not the situation in which we may want to stake the future or our country given that the Democrats have once again decimated our military which they always do prior to having us jump into a war.
The great sin today is to not be politically correct while treason has no meaning or concern any longer.

I know that both Iraq and Iran have fought wars for the prime reason, to thin out the large number of young people without jobs in order to have a common enemy and avoid internal uprising because their dictatorships do not make a country prosperous.  When I was at Texas Tech, I got to know some Iranians males who  were from wealthy families and they were sent to America to prevent their kids from being included in the thinning/slaughter.  Iran was even throwing children into the slaughter to the point that the Iraq soldiers abandoned the front lines because they simply could not stomach massive slaughter of the young children sent by the Ayatollahs to fight the war.

America cannot lose face anymore than it already has due to Obama, so we should at least wait to hear the UN report to try to determine which of the two sides that both have chemical weapons actually did the dirty deed.  However, I still do not believe that we have anything to gain other than to seize and destroy the WMD chemical weapons at most.  Both sides hate us and would join together to kill the infidels before resuming the fight among themselves.  We are really in a mess when we have to look to the UN (another corrupt organization made up of mostly corrupt third world leaders)  for evidence given their track record in world affairs.

[This part is tongue in cheek] Islam is such a peace loving religion and if you believe otherwise you deserve to be killed, In fact, there are a number of reasons we all deserve to be killed. However, we are supposed to submit to the tyranny of political correctness until the very end."
  

Syrian War

Open E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn & Cruz (TX): 

 

Dear Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn & Cruz,

   The Washington Times says Syria war plan advances in Senate, pushes Obama to help rebels.

    I am watching how you vote, and it better be "no".

War with Syria

    John McCain and Pres. Obama are now bosom buddies!

    What suddenly brings them together? War!

    Pres. Obama is normally not a war monger, but he has gotten a severe push from John Kerry, his new Secretary. of State.  Since Obama needs to keep his team together, he doesn't want to squelch Kerry, and he previously placed himself in a box on his "red line" statement  concerning chemical weapons, he is going along with the war fad.

    Senator McCain is a war monger from day one. He comes from  previous 2 generations of military officers. He was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War.

    McCain and Obama are now jointly beating the war drum to obtain a positive "war with Syria" vote from Congress. The wishes of the American public on the matter be damned.

    We also suddenly hear that House Speaker John Boehner has joined the war group, which rather surprises me. Boehner has previously done a few things, which has shaken my confidence in his judgment, but this is the last straw. I can only regard him now as stupid.

    For those who may not have been following the situation, but have heard of the Syrian conflict, let's remember that Americans have no "dog in that fight" and should not be participating in any form.

Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Various Issues

Open E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer (TX)

 

Dear Rep. Neugebauer.

    I read your Newsletter.

    In your summer travels, you picked up that your constituents want a 5-year farm bill, border control and revision of Obamacare.

    You then said nothing about the Farm Bill. I understand that the recent House passage of the Farm Bill excluded food stamps, which I consider major progress  What do your agricultural constituents want in a Farm Bill? Some loaded-up goodies or an opportunity to compete with the rest of the world? 

   You said nothing about what you are doing on border control.

    On Obamacare, you said you would be working overtime to repeal it. How do you plan to do that?

    You also commented on Welfare reform. You said we need a program to improve the status of poor people and get them off welfare. How do you plan to do that?

    All in all, I note that you have a tendency to concentrate on communicating problems we already know about, with a dearth of your actions to remedy them.

Misguided Johnson, McCain & Graham on Syria

Open E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn & Cruz (TX):

 

Dear Rep Neugebauer & Senators. Cornyn & Cruz,

    This morning on TV, I heard Rep. Johnson of Ohio say that Pres. Assad of Syria needs to go!

    Who suddenly left Rep. Johnson or even the US in charge of world government, such that they can choose the leaders of any country? i may not like Assad personally and abhor some of the things he does, but he is the chosen leader of the Syrian people and no American has any right to try to force his ouster.

    The Syrian civil war started 2 years ago, when an insurgent group tried to take over the government. It seems to be unknown concerning the basis for the insurgent group's action, other than it wanted to obtain the power of government. The Assad regime naturally objected on the presumption that it must have been doing something right for the previous 10 years. Note that it is an internal problem having nothing to do with the US and in no way subjecting the American people to danger.

    I hear also on TV that Pres Obama will hold a closed meeting with Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two well-known war mongers..

No US Military Action in Syria

Open E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer, & Senators Cornyn & Cruz (TX)

Dear Rep. and Senators,

If you vote for US military action against Syria, in support of Pres. Obama, you will lose by vote in forthcoming elections.

There is nothing more to be learned, Whether Sarin was used is of no significance. What has happened or will happen in Syria is of no direct consequence to the US. Middle East taunts to the US should be ignored, as well as any subsequent traditional military action or threat by Iran.

I have two caveats. If Israel is attacked, we must come to its aid. Israel is part of the original UN effort to return the Jews to their homeland, and we have been part of this resolve since its inception. Secondly, if Iran becomes an imminent nuclear threat to the US Homeland, we must wipe them out.