Rep. Neugebauer(TX) on Farm Bill, Obamacare, and Veterans

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer:

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your newsletter.

FARM BILL    Your first item involved required action by your Committee to resolve differences in the House and Senate versions of the US Farm Bill. You said, "Above anything else, our producers [farmers] want certainty. They can’t predict the weather, they can’t make it rain, and they can’t prevent a drought, but they should be able to know what they can expect from our farm programs."    Everybody would like certainty, but certainty is not realistic. There are only degrees of uncertainty, also considered as degrees of risk. True that farmers can't predict the weather or make it rain, but neither can you or any other segment of government. You can only throw taxpayer money to farmers who you believe have been unjustly treated by nature. That's ridiculous!.
    Farming is a business like anything else. It may have more risks, which would then deserve a higher profit than a less risky business. In addition as you well know, crop insurance is readily available to all farmers and the cost can be included in production costs of doing business. Government needs to have no part in such an operation. In fact, the further government stands away from farmers, the more productive they are likely to be.
    I'm sure that neither House members nor Senators are so dense that they have not realized the truth of what I have said. The only reason we continue with farm programs is for local Representatives such as yourself to obtain votes from farmers for your continuity in office with continued handouts. The Soviets had a five-year program, which was bad because it was based on improper ideology, but at least it had a semblance of logic with the objective being to increase production. Congress does not even have that fallback to defend its position of meddling in the farming business.
    I even hesitate to mention the ridiculousness of including a nutrition program, which is food stamps, in a Farm Bill. This is so far out in logic that it is almost unbelievable, but for some reason Congress has embraced this stupid idea. Is the objective to obtain votes? Will all low information voters suddenly vote for the local Representative and Senator who has given them another handout? Likely not. They will vote for Democrats only based upon the fact that Democrats in power have regularly given them handouts. Any Republican who doesn't see this is obviously blinded or is a Communist in disguise.

OBAMACARE    You next spent four paragraphs discussing the deficiencies involving the Obamacare webpage. For some unknown reason, you have fallen into the trap of agreeing with TV political news that this is really important. It is not. It only detracts from the main problem.
    Obamacare is an entitlement program of massive proportions. It will be the many straws that broke the camels back. The US has been moving toward Socialism since World War II, and we are almost there. Obamacare takes money from people who have properly decided to buy medical insurance for themselves and now gives it by government edict to the so-called underprivileged, or shall I say mostly under-attempted achievers, as another entitlement.
    You were part of Congress who voted for Obamacare. Are you now raising a racket against the Obama website in order to distract attention from your fundamental error?
    Let's remember that in two years the Obamacare website will be fully functional and all problems related to its establishment will be forgotten. However, we will not be able to forget Obamacare itself as a drag on the economy and a forced inequality in expenses versus revenues, which will bring the country to oblivion. With you proudly say that you were part of the government that voted for it?

VETERAN HOMELESSNESS
     Here I think we might be on the same page. You said you are attempting to help over 62,000 homeless veterans find homes. Congratulations! You are right on target for reasons I will try to explain.
    The nature of military life is somewhat like slavery. It differs in that an individual is offering himself up for a controlled operation, rather than being physically captured and forced into servitude. From there on, we have gross similarity. For each individual, the military supplies housing, food, clothing, recreation, medical care, and anything else necessary for life. In return, the soldier must obey the orders of its master, which is the military establishment and representatives thereof. He can be forced to perform dangerous assignments, such as exposing himself to life-threatening enemy action, or perform boring or other undesirable actions, such as cleaning latrines. In effect, he is equivalent to what blacks were previously exposed to as slaves on a plantation. However, it is not my objective to castigate the military. Their procedures are necessary, and as I said previously, "soldiers" are mostly there by free choice. Only during war and the so-called "draft" do they fully qualify as slaves.
    "Soldiers" generally volunteer at a young age; 18 years old or so. They have had no experience in earning a living, finding a place to live, buying their own food, handling their own medical problems, etc.. These items have usually been provided by parents. On entering the military, the "soldier" continues his lack of accumulating experience in the standard aspects of living, which most of us become educated to handle. We learn how to write checks, buy food at the supermarket, arrange for financing on an automobile, or house, etc. For the "soldier", the military establishment takes over those responsibilities from the parents, which continues the naivety of the "soldier".
    When a "soldier" retires from the military at the present mandatory age of 62, he is suddenly faced with living requirements with which most of us are completely familiar but with which he has no concept. It is for this reason that many retired veterans are unable to cope and we have 62,000 homeless.
    We could easily say that is their problem and that they will have to learn to cope. However, they have given their best years in the service of our country and for us, and we have a responsibility to see that they are not destitute. Our military system has helped make them what they are, and since the military system is ours, we have the responsibility to be involved, not necessarily as individuals, but as a government function.
    We have a Veterans Administration, but I am not familiar with all of the details of that operation. I know that certain medical benefits are available, but I have some doubt that some of the fundamental conditions for living are supplied by the VA. We should at least have "soldiers homes", where retired veterans can live in a manner consistent with their experience in the military, where they are supplied with reasonably comfortable housing and appropriate food, medical attention and recreation. We apparently do that for prisoners in our state and federal penitentiaries. Should we be doing less for our veterans?

Hurricane Sandy Aftermath

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    According to the Washington Times, last year Congress rushed to send $60.4 billion in emergency money to aid Superstorm Sandy victims, saying people’s lives depended on getting the full amount out the door as fast as possible. The storm left more than 100 people dead and caused billions of dollars in damage along the Northeast coast, making landfall in New Jersey on Oct. 29, 2012, and did the worst of its damage to that state and neighboring New York.
    Officials initially pressed for $80 billion in federal aid, but Congress cut that by about a quarter and passed two bills in January to get the money flowing. But as of Aug. 31, the most recent financial report from the federal Sandy task force shows that only about one-fifth of the money has been obligated and little more than $5 billion, or 11 percent, has been paid out. On Monday, the administration released a fact sheet saying that in the ensuing two months, another $8.5 billion has been paid out, bringing the total to $13.5 billion.
    There are two important considerations on the scenario.
    The first is that hurricanes are a predictable event. We know they are coming. We just don't know where and when, nor the degree of intensity. We also know that hurricanes involve high wind, high ocean waves, and many times flooding on coastal areas from high tides.. We also know that hurricanes diminish in velocity as they continue farther inland. This means that private and public properties on coastal areas are particular susceptible to damage and destruction from wind and flooding. Fortunately, this information allows a choice. Owners of shoreline property are at high risk for damage, while owners of property farther inland are significantly at less risk. In addition, wind and flood insurance is also available. All of this requires a particular mindset, which is that the property owner must take responsibility for decision of where he owns property and whether he will carry insurance to cover any potential loss.
    In the case of Sandy, we don't know how many property owners insured themselves against financial loss from hurricane wind and flooding, but it is presumed to be small. Otherwise, Congress would not have rushed to spend $60.4 billion in restitution for people who had made bad judgments either on the location of their property or their lack of appropriate insurance. Another effect of the Congressional action is to encourage people to avoid personal responsibility, with the probability that government will bail them out whenever they have made poor decisions.
    The second consideration in the scenario is that while $60.4 billion was allocated by Congress, only $13.5 billion has been paid out in a year. I would like to say that the Administration has proven to be much wiser in its spending than is Congress, but I actually believe that while the Administration would love to spend all the money quickly, it has been incapable of doing so because of its incompetency. Here we have the unusual case where government incompetency has really led to a favorable effect.
    What I am advocating is that neither Congress nor the Administration should be encouraging US citizens to be irresponsible in the handling of their personal property, with the expectation that taxpayers through government will come to their aid on any mistakes they have made.

Apology to Rep. Neugebauer

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    Please accept my sincere APOLOGY. I previously accused you of voting "Yea" on the final version of H.R.2775, which granted Pres. Obama a blank check for spending and increased debt. In fact, you voted "Nay".
    The original bill was introduced as H.R.2775.IH by Diane Black. The bill title was "To condition the provision of premium and cost-sharing subsidies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act upon a certification that a program to verify household income and other qualifications for such subsidies is operational, and for other purposes". You were a cosponsor on July 31.
    The bill went through three more versions and was finally issued as the "Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014" (H.R.2775.ENR). It was here that you voted "Nay" on October 16.

    Again, please accept my sincere apology for not having presented this correctly in the first place.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll550.xml

Rep. Neugebauer Voted for the Continuing Resolution

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    On October 21 you issued one of your newsletters, which commented on Congress passing a bill raising the federal debt ceiling and providing stopgap funding for the federal government. You said you could not vote to increase our debt limit without making genuine spending cuts.
    The following day I emailed you, with my compliments on your statement that you could not vote to increase the debt limit without spending cuts.
    Within the past few days, I had occasion to review the House voting record on HR 2775. This bill was essentially the same as the Senate bill PL 113-46, which was a continuing resolution bill without strings, and which President Obama had demanded all along. In effect, House Republicans caved on their resolve to not increase the debt limit without spending cuts. I have already written concerning my displeasure with the House Republicans' action.
    However, I decided to check the voting record on HR 2775, which gives Obama a free hand, and found that you had voted "Yeah", contrary to your previous claim that you had voted "Nay".
    I am extremely disappointed not only with the total position of the House voting on this matter, but more specifically on the fact that you apparently misled me and perhaps many others; should I say by lying?

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on Government Shutdown

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I have read your latest newsletter.
    You said that during the recent government shutdown you worked to reinstate death benefits for families of fallen troops, and spent time with the Texas heroes who came to DC to visit their memorials.   
    During the shutdown, you voted against the Continuing Resolution to give Pres. Obama a blank check for unlimited spending. Congratulations for your position. While a government shutdown was objectionable, the final Senate decision to give Obama the blank check was far worse. Apparently,. You did the best you could under the circumstances, with the Senate being loaded with Communistic Democrats.

Texas Constitutional Amendments

        On November 5, Texas residents will be voting on nine propositions related to the Texas Constitution. The propositions are listed below, along with an indication of how I plan to vote.
Proposition 6    Legislation (Senate Joint Resolution 1) proposes to create the State Water Implementation Fund (SWIFT) and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund as special funds outside the state’s general fund.
    Proposition 6 will be funded by a one-time, $2 billion appropriation from the economic stabilization fund – the Rainy Day Fund.
Supporters of the water plan say it is critical for Texas’ water needs for the next half-century. Opponents object to use of the Rainy Day Fund. Instead of funding new projects, opponents say the state should ease regulatory restrictions that would encourage the development of an adequate supply.
    Vote AGAINST. While water is important, I see no reason why it should be handled outside of the general funding for the state.
Proposition 1    While a number of disabled veterans and surviving spouses receive full or partial homestead exemptions, the surviving spouses of military personnel killed in action do not receive an exemption.
    Montgomery Central Appraisal District Chief Appraiser Mark Castleschouldt said there are 10 surviving spouses who would qualify for 100 percent property exemption. The total tax revenue on those properties is $37,500, he said.
    Proposition 1 permits the surviving spouse to transfer the exemption to another residence, as long as the surviving spouse has not remarried since the service member’s death.
    Vote FOR. Surviving spouses of killed military personnel should have the same benefits as spouses of disabled personnel.
Proposition 4    The amendment permits the Legislature to authorize a new exemption from property taxation if the house was donated to a disabled veteran by a charitable organization at no cost to the veteran.
    Vote FOR. The donation of the house is irrelevant compared to ongoing taxes. Tax exemption for disabled veteran should be afforded the same as Proposition 1.
Proposition 5    This amendment permits reverse mortgages to Texas homeowners at least 62 years old, who are house-rich but cash-poor. They would be able to sell one property and purchase another in one transaction, using the equity of one home to make a cash down payment on a less expensive home. That combined deal could save a homeowner several thousand dollars in closing fees.
    The proposed amendment also requires detailed disclosures at least 12 days before closing.
    Vote FOR. Sounds reasonable.
Proposition 9    This proposed amendment expands the range of sanctions that can be assessed against a judge or justice following a formal proceeding before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
    Currently, the SCJC can issue a public censure or recommend a judge’s removal or retirement. The additional disciplinary actions include public admonition, warning, reprimand or required to undergo more training or education.
    Vote AGAINST. We already have too much weasel wording in our regulations. The State Commission has enough choices with public censure, removal or retirement.
Proposition 7    Home-rule municipalities such as Conroe and Willis are required by state law to hold a special election to fill a vacant position on the city council, and if the term of office is more than two years but less than four years.
    Proposition 7 requires home-rule cities to provide in its charter the procedure to fill an unexpired term that is 12 months or less.
    This may not apply to Lubbock, but if it does, I would vote FOR.
Proposition 8    With its population exceeding 800,000, Hidalgo County in South Texas is the largest county in Texas without a hospital district. Proposition 8 repeals a section of the state constitution that restricts the property tax rate for a hospital district in Htdalgo County to 10 cents per $100 valuation.
The amendment would provide an ongoing source of revenue to help fund the creation and operation of a planned University of Texas medical school in the Rio Grande Valley. Any applicable property tax rate adopted by the district is subject to voter approval.
    This may not apply to Lubbock, but if it does, I would vote AGAINST. It seems reasonable that a county of 800,000 people should have a hospital.
However, the practice of medicine, including hospitals, is a business and should be established by private capital, including allowance of a profit incentive. Similar to the now rampant discussion on Obamacare, only Communists believe in taxpayer supported medical care.

Proposition 3    Under current legislation, aircraft parts that qualify for a freeport exemption are exempt from ad valorem taxes as long as the aircraft parts are shipped out of the state within a 175-day period. Otherwise the parts do not qualify for the current exemption.
    Proposition 3 increases the exemption to 730 days (two years). Supporters of the amendment contend aircraft parts inventories do not turn over very quickly, thus putting Texas suppliers at a competitive disadvantage.    Vote AGAINST. I'm a believer in minimal taxes, but if taxes are necessary, they should not be loaded down with exceptions. There is no indication of how there is a "competitive disadvantage", in this case.. Stay with the current exemption or actually consider eliminating the tax altogether.
Proposition 2    The amendment eliminates the State Medical Education Board and a medical education fund. They were founded in 1952 to encourage medical students to establish their practices in rural areas, but the board has not received state appropriations or issued a new loan for more than 20 years, as the state Legislature has found more efficient ways to attract physicians to rural areas.
    Vote FOR. Anytime we get rid of a law or regulation, we should do it. I don't see that we need a State Medical Education Board or a Medical Education Fund. We probably never should have had them. I am concerned about the so-called "more efficient ways to attract physicians to rural areas", but that is not the consideration here.

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on the Farm Bill

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your form letter on the Farm Bill.
    You said you did not vote for the Senate version, because it 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.
    Congratulations for voting against it.
    You also said It failed to provide farmers a true safety net in difficult years, failed to fully target assistance to those most in need, and failed to prioritize farm aid over duplicative programs, subsidizing unrelated issues from green energy to housing.  It is shameful that Washington was unable to responsibly address the true needs of American farmers..
    It is at that point where we have a strong difference of opinion. Farming is a business, clear and simple. It is not up to the federal taxpayers to supply a safety net for farmers in difficult years and target assistance for those most in need. Economic difficulties in years of drought or other adverse weather conditions can be alleviated by insurance, which should be paid by farmers as a cost of doing business. Those most in need likely do not need assistance. The implication is that they are incompetent businessmen, and should leave the business to those more able to make it work. There obviously should be no duplicative programs, when we should not even have initial programs.        Any farm bill should be stripped down to its bare essentials, which involves essentially no taxpayer subsidization of any kind, but consideration made for public protection against famine. The inclusion of issues on green energy and housing is particularly ridiculous. It smacks of Congress at its worst, which is payola for subsequent votes to remain in office.

A Minor Report from Historical Perspective

Audrey Hudson, a Washington Times reporter, said that armed Maryland police and federal agents in full body armor broke into her house at 4:30 in the morning and seized her private notes and government documents that she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
I'm not sure why we are reporting this. It was standard practice by Hitler's SS in Germany during the late '30s.
Perhaps we should start to get excited when a couple of million Americans are sent off to gas chambers.
For those not familiar with Hitler's SS, it was an acronym for Schutz Staffel, which means Defense Echelon. Note the rather innocuous term. However, it was an elite military unit of the Nazi Party that served as Hitler's bodyguard and as a special police force.
For those also not familiar with the gas chamber analogy, the Nazis killed a few million Jews in gas chambers. The more commonly recognized term for that action is The Holocaust.

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on Government Operations

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn
    Thank you for your form letter regarding operations of the federal government.
    You said that while you supported reopening the federal government, you opposed the legislation funding the discretionary operations of the federal government through January 15, 2014, and suspending the debt ceiling through February 7, 2014. because it failed to tackle the fiscal and spending challenges that face our nation.
    The record shows that you voted AGAINST the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2014. Congratulations!
    You went on to say that Congress and the President need to work together to implement the spending cuts and structural entitlement reforms necessary to strengthen the long-term fiscal integrity of our country.
    May I suggest that this is a futile hope on your part. While it is absolutely needed, there is essentially no possibility of accomplishing it. We have a president, with a Communistic/Socialistic ideology of completely converting the United States to a Communist entity. The handwriting is on the wall. He has said so in detail. The only thing lacking is for opposition to declare him the Communist, which he really is. He has great support among Democrats, and the fact that you recently lost the effort to include spending cuts in continuing operation of the federal government, is a clear indication that he will not relent one iota. I suggest you have to be equally adamant. Unless there is a complete turnaround in public thinking, presently favoring socialism, you will likely lose. However, I implore that you go down fighting.

US Policy on Egyptian Coptic Christians

Open Email to Sen. Bob Corker (TN):

Dear Sen. Corker,
    I heard you this morning on Fox News bemoaning the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt. As usual, the conversation revolved around support and money.
    As much as I support Christianity, I apparently need to remind you that Christianity in the United States is a part of American culture. It is not a part of government. In fact, the founding fathers were so adamant about this that they passed the First Amendment to the Constitution, which specifically forbade the establishment of the state religion and the promotion or persecution of any religion by the federal government.
    In view of the constitutional requirement, I respectfully suggest that you get off the kick of sending financial aid or any other aid to Egyptian Christians. You are part of US government, and what you say and do reflects on the US government. If you wish to support Christianity through mission work, or anything related thereto, I suggest you resign from your position as Senator and take up this new occupation.    On the flipside, we know that Pres. Obama and many members of his staff are supporting the development of Islam in the United States. For the same constitutional reasons cited above, that is wrong, wrong, wrong. If you wish to fight the President on this matter, you would be well within your constitutional rights and responsibilities.

Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Farm Bill and Government Spending

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

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

FARM BILL    You asked for a vote on whether I preferred the Senate or House version of the proposed Farm Law, or whether I was undecided. I did not vote for any of the three choices. Voting for the Senate or House version would imply that I approved one of the other. Voting as undecided would imply that I have no opinion.
    In fact, I do have a strong opinion. Neither the Senate nor the house bills are appropriate for a Constitutional Republic. They are both loaded with subsidies from taxpayer funds, which makes them socialistic endeavors. Farming is a business. It should not be given subsidies for insurance against drought or other natural calamity, nor should it be controlled in any form. As a business, it should be left unimpeded to do its job, which is to make a profit in supplying goods and services to the American public. Government has no place in the economics of this operation. The only function of government here is to see that there are enough farming businesses turning out products to avoid potential famine. This does not imply that farming should be promoted. It only implies that appropriate production data should be collected so that some judgment can be made at government level on whether famine is imminent. If such is found to be the case, which is highly unlikely, it is only then that Congress should be stepping in to take some radical control. However, this does not mean government should micro manage, such as control how many peanuts or how much wheat is produced. Market forces will establish appropriate control levels.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING    You say it's time to address our spending problem. I say it's way past time to address our spending problem, but it is never too late.
    I agree with your statement that we need to deal with our out-of-control spending problem now to protect our economy and the legacy of our nation in the future. I also agree with the various actions you appear to have been involved in to bring us back on course.
    You should be particularly adamant on this, as you have seen the new light. Congress has been overspending for many years, and you have been part of it. Perhaps you have done this opportunistically, and in order to be part of a more powerful regime. Hopefully, you now see the fallacy of such reasoning, which will drive this country into bankruptcy and reduction to a third world entity.
OBAMA'S BROKEN PROMISES
    You go through a litany of Pres. Obama's broken promises, all of which are true. However, there is a distinct futility in this operation, since 44% of the public still approve of Pres. Obama's actions as President. There are various reasons for this, including the fact that he is a spellbinding speaker and has a program geared to granting favors to both large powerful financial supporters, and low information voters.
    The point is that in spite of the fact that you and I may strongly disapprove of his actions, there is no way we are going to unseat him by impeachment. The only approach remaining is to minimize his socialistic damage through strong negative action in the House. This should be both proactive and reactive. The rest will all be up to the general public in forthcoming elections. It will either decide to continue the march toward socialism with ultimate destruction, or a turnaround to a Republic operation with a renewed sense of continuity.
SOUTH PLAINS HONOR FLIGHT
    You say you were proud to welcome over 70 veterans to our nation’s capitol. The South Plains Honor Flight brought these veterans to Washington, D.C. to commemorate their service and thank them for their sacrifice for our freedoms.
    No problem here. We all appreciate the service of our veterans to our country, and I see the need for a little public relations on your part to help your reelection.
    However, the word Afghanistan again caught my eye. We are engaged there in a stupid war. To use a timeworn cliché favored by politicians, the US has no interests in Afghanistan. Our operations there cost a lot of money and kill our people. If we don't like their heroin production, there are obviously other steps we can take to eliminate it. If the war mongers say that we need to be there because we can use it as a base against Iran with its forthcoming production of nuclear weapons, that's ridiculous. We don't need such a base with our long-range ballistic missiles and drones, which can come from much farther distances than only from a neighboring country.

Hooray for Communism/Socialism?

    Congratulations to Pres. Obama! One of his campaign promises was to change the United States, and he has succeeded and continues to succeed beyond expectations.
    According to the Washington Times, he had a little difficulty with some House Republicans, which resulted in a temporary government shutdown, but they surrendered this week by settling on a bill that reopened the government, included some special earmark projects, unlimited borrowing ability and no spending cuts. This was a complete victory for the President in his continuing program to destroy any semblance of capitalism in the US, and establish a complete Communist/Socialist government. Apparently the strategy is to drive the present government into bankruptcy which will allow the new government to arise from the ashes. His tactics of keeping his team of Administration and Congressional Democrats fully together, combined with his resolve of never surrendering, did the job..
    The day after the Republican surrender, the Treasury Department borrowed $328 billion, which beat the previous daily record of $238 billion. This brought the total national debt to $17.075 trillion. I haven't seen anything yet on how the three credit rating agencies are responding to the new debt in relation to future ability to repay. However, it is certainly moving in the right direction of bankruptcy for our Communistic/Socialistic President and Congress.

Federal Government Operations

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,    Thank you for your form letter on government operations.
    You said, on October 17, 2013, the President signed into law the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (P.L. 113-46).  This legislation funds the discretionary operations of the federal government until January 15, 2014, and suspends the debt ceiling through February 7, 2014. You voted against this legislation, because it fails to tackle the fiscal and spending challenges that face our nation and government.  Congress cannot continue to justify increasing the debt ceiling without addressing the underlying problem of excessive spending.
    Congratulations! You did well, although you could have screamed louder against it.
    You went on to say that in order to avert the unnecessary government shutdowns, the House of Representatives passed several reasonable interim funding proposals that also would have provided relief for Americans from Obamacare. Each one represented a compromise and would have fully funded the government through December maintaining current spending levels.
    On that point, I must differ with you, the House of Representatives did not pass reasonable interim funding proposals. They concentrated on Obamacare, which is important but nowhere near as important as the total spending level and borrowing capacity of the federal government. The fact that each of those proposals would have fully funded the government through December and maintain current spending levels is an atrocity. Since you are a Senator and not a member of the House, I do not hold you responsible, but your thought pattern is indicative of your questionable position.
    Lastly you go on to explain to us the dangers of excessive government spending, as if we already don't know that. May I also remind you that we did not accumulate $16 trillion in national debt overnight. This was accomplished by many years of excessive spending approved by the total Congress, which includes the Senate. Perhaps you personally may have fought this all along, but I have serious doubt.
    However giving you the benefit of such doubt, the question is what are you doing about correcting this long-term problem at the present time? Must I beat Gov. Palin into a higher state of frenzy in order to have you take some positive action?

Obamacare Law in Perspective

    The following article by Boston radio host Jeffrey T. Kuhner appears to put the Obamacare law into reasonable perspective:

    "The conventional wisdom is wrong. The mainstream media — and their parrots in the Republican establishment — are claiming that President Obama decisively won the government shutdown battle. In fact, the narrative being peddled is that the GOP brand has been badly damaged, paving the way for a possible Democratic Party takeover of the House of Representatives in the 2014 elections. This is puerile nonsense. Tea Party Republicans, led by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, may have lost the battle, but they are poised for a major victory in the larger Obamacare war.
    Liberal pundits and Republican moderates, such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona, are blaming one person for the partial government shutdown: Mr. Cruz. They argue that for all their attempts to defund or delay Obamacare, Mr. Cruz and his conservative allies accomplished nothing. The final deal reopens the federal government until Jan. 15 and lifts the debt ceiling into early February. In exchange, no significant reforms or revisions were made to Mr. Obama’s signature health law. As for the repeal of the medical devices tax, a one-year delay in the individual mandate and an end to the exemption given to Congress and its staff, none of these proposals were accepted by the Democrats. Hence, the political and media class are convinced Mr. Cruz’s obstructionist tactics backfired, fostering the public perception that “right-wing extremists” have hijacked the GOP. Mr. Obama now openly refers to the Tea Party as a “dangerous faction.”
    This is myth and propaganda masquerading as analysis. The legislative deal simply does one thing: kick the can down the road. Yet the same, enduring problems remain — the very problems identified by Mr. Cruz and Tea Party Republicans. America is sitting on a ticking debt bomb, Obamacare — the most destructive law in modern memory — is a disaster, and our ruling elites are incapable of reining in out-of-control public spending.
America is increasingly dominated by one seminal reality: We are the most indebted nation in history. The national debt is approaching $17 trillion. By 2016, the debt is expected to hit $20 trillion. That will be Greece-like levels, a debt load so crippling that Washington will have trouble simply paying the interest on the debt payments. Our creditors will realize we are sliding toward the United States of Argentina — a fiscal basket case unable to live within our means. The value of the dollar will plunge. Interest rates will soar. Taxes will have to be increased. The social safety net will be shredded. Unless Congress immediately confronts the reckless spending and near-record trillion-dollar deficits, the United States will go bankrupt. The question is no longer if, but when.
    Mr. Obama’s massive health care overhaul is precipitating the impending economic collapse. Nearly every aspect of Obamacare has turned out to be a lie. The real price tag is not less than a $1 trillion; rather, it is a multitrillion-dollar entitlement program that America cannot afford. Rather than lowering premium costs for the average family, it dramatically raises them — sometimes by thousands of dollars a year. Millions of citizens have lost their health benefits or are unable to keep their doctor. People seeking to enroll in Obamacare’s marketplace exchanges are stunned at the high costs of the health insurance plans. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office acknowledges that the law will not achieve its stated goal: universal coverage. Instead, about 30 million Americans will still not have health care. Hence, one-sixth of the U.S. economy will have been revolutionized essentially to put only 17 million new recipients on the Obamacare rolls. The complex law also undermines economic growth and job creation, compelling employers to either slash employees’ hours or not hire new workers. In short, Obamacare is a cancer, slowly devouring our economic dynamism, individual liberties and medical care.
    As the law is implemented, its devastating effects will be increasingly felt. By next year, the government shutdown will be a fading memory. What the public will remember, though, is that a band of Tea Party patriots sought to thwart the oncoming disaster. Mr. Cruz, along with Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, represent the future. The question is no longer ideological — small government versus big government, free-market-based health care versus nationalized health care, or capitalism versus socialism. Rather, it is about something more simple — and profound: basic arithmetic.
    The United States is a giant bus that is rushing toward an economic precipice. A few more years of Mr. Obama’s borrow-and-spend policies and America will crash upon the rocks of fiscal reality and national insolvency. The Democrats are keeping their foot on the gas pedal, full speed ahead. The Republican establishment thinks we may need to slow down — at least a little. The bus, however, will still go off the cliff. Only the Tea Party is saying — in fact, yelling — to hit the brakes. They’re right, and they will be vindicated. The only question is this: Will Americans wake up before it’s too late?

Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Farm Bill, Endangered Species, and Debt Limit

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your Newsletter and have the the following comments on your three major points:

FARM BILL    You are on a committee to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate Farm Bills.
    You say our farmers and ranchers are being asked to produce more food and fiber than ever before to feed and clothe our country. They put a lot on the line to do that every year, risking droughts, floods, and uncertain markets. We ask a lot of our farmers and ranchers. Let's give them a five-year farm bill to help them meet those demands.
    I'm afraid you have a socialistic attitude on this topic. We should not ask our farmers and ranchers to do a lot for us and then compensate them through some sort of government program. Farming is a business. A Republic government is supposed to give individuals an opportunity to do work and make a profit. It is true that there are various risks in farming, such as droughts and floods, but all businesses have risks. It is for that purpose that insurance companies supply risk insurance, and usually the cost of such insurance is part of the expense of doing business. The businessman includes this cost in the prices of the products, which he sells. It is not up to you or anyone else in government to give farmers a five-year program with the guarantee or even the implication that government will assume the cost of risks or losses.
    You say the House bill reduced food stamp cost by $40 billion, while the Senate bill had only $4 billion in cuts. Your committee is expected to resolve the difference, so that the House and Senate bills are on the same basis, as one bill to submit to the President for his signature.
    That is abominable! Agriculture is the production of plant crops and sale thereof. Food stamps are welfare. Agriculture is a productive enterprise for society. Food stamps are a drain on the society. You previously eliminated food stamps (called nutrition assistance) from the farm bill and by some ridiculous mechanism it found its way back in. Get food stamps out of a Farm Bill! It is welfare, welfare, welfare, and should be handled in any federal budget as such.

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to declare any living animal, bird, or fish to be considered as an endangered species. This subsequently allows the FWS to confiscate rights of private landowners in order to protect the so-called habitat of the endangered species
    This is a ridiculous law, which is unconstitutional. Our Founding Fathers upheld an economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all nonowners–even the government. The right of private property ownership, including use thereof, is guaranteed by the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution
        Therefore, your fiddling around with giving each state a time advantage prior to a federal confiscation of private property is of insignificant value. I respectfully suggest that you take the opinion that the FWS, has no right to confiscate any private property use rights. Other options are that the FWS may negotiate to purchase a property and use thereof, or it may negotiate to purchase the wildlife on private property and move it to an equivalent habitat on government land (a reservation).
DEBT CEILING
    You said you recognize that it is not necessary to raise the debt ceiling, because the government is still receiving tax income every day which can be used to fund our obligations. You also said you are working on solutions that would reduce our spending, so we don’t keep hitting our debt ceiling and increasing the amount our children and grandchildren will owe. $17 trillion in debt is not the legacy you want to pass on to the next generation.
    I agree with you completely on this, but the problem is that you have done little to foster its development. It appears that the people of the United States still mostly believe that raising the debt limit is necessary to avoid default on payment of government obligation interest. You have been allowing the President and Senate Democrats to persist in this lie without appropriate challenge.

Do Not Increase Debt Limit nor Approve Spending Bill

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
    According to the Washington Times, you have proposed increasing the government debt limit and approving White House spending bill in exchange for repealing an Obamacare tax (defunding).
Bad move! There is no need to increase the debt limit to avoid default on payment of government obligations. There is sufficient tax income to pay bond interest. An increase in the debt limit would only allow the Obama administration to have access to an enlarged kitty bank for frivolous squandering. Approving the White House spending bill would have similar dire consequences.
Fortunately, your own team is opposed to the idea, and in addition, Pres. Obama said that he would veto it. Good move on both sides!
Your strategy must be to refuse an increase in the debt limit and not approve the White House spending bill. In effect, this will keep the government shutdown at a 17% level, which after three weeks, we can see does not have dire consequences. Your refusal to increase the debt limit will force Pres. Obama to accept that refusal. He will not take the chance of an optional default on paying government bond interest.

New Name for Washington DC

    I had previously quoted an article written by columnist Thomas Sowell concerning the state of spending, debt ceiling, and default payments in government discussions. One of our Political Associates as indirectly replied to this as follows:
    "Doc Sucsy, thanks for the Dr. Sowell / Boehner bit. I have long been intrigued by the wisdom of the Democratic fathers in selecting the cute little 'jackass' as a mascot and the mischievous 'Rat' rodent to describe their actions. We are now witnessing the crossing of a jackass to a rat and we now have a new species, a JACKASSICRAT.  To fully accommodate this Political Phenomenon we would do well to change the name of our national Political Zoo, Washington DC, to Jackassic Park. If we want to stop the mutation of this new 'Creature' we need to shut down the White House!  Best regards and keep up your good work~ Exterminator One". 

Sen. Cruz (TX) Wins Straw polll as Republican President

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,    Congratulations! The Washington Times says you trounced the competition in the Presidential Straw Poll at the 2013 Values Voters Summit, with Dr. Ben Carson and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum coming in a distant second and third places — highlighting how you have become a rock star with grassroots conservatives. The actual votes were 42% to you, 13% each for Ben Carson and Rick Santorum, 6% for Rand Paul and 5% for Marco Rubio.
    My opinion on this grand success is simply that you put yourself into the public eye when you gave a long stint of filibustering in the Senate. This is not to take away from your fundamental beliefs in a Republic Government, as opposed to a Communist Government advocated and pursued by Democrats. Your fundamental beliefs are not particularly different from the other Republican contenders in the straw poll, but you were willing to put yourself on the line at great inconvenience. The public appreciates that sort of direct action, as opposed to much of the mealy-mouthed conversation that takes place in Washington.

Playing Chicken on Paying Government Bond Interest

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
    The Washington Times says Congress spent the weekend insisting that it will reach a deal to raise the federal government’s borrowing limit by Thursday but making scant progress even as all sides tried to reassure itchy financial markets ahead of the stock market opening Monday.
    If you have actually been part of the "promise" to make a deal raising the federal government's borrowing limit, I strongly disagree with your decision.
    As you well know, it is not necessary to raise the debt limit in order to avoid a US government default on paying its bond interests, and that is the only significant thing relating to world financial markets. There is little doubt that markets would be slightly troubled without raising the debt limit, because it would be an indication of a reversion to a more stable world economic market, as opposed to one souped-up by the introduction of tremendous amounts of arbitrary government spending. However, that condition of frugality must eventually exist either now or and in the future, because basic economics say that it is impossible to continue in a deficit situation and increasing the debt limit is not a permanent solution.
    From a political point of view, it is Pres. Obama who would be responsible for any default on payment of government bond interest. Adequate funds are available, and it would only be a matter of prioritizing how that money is spent. Simply stated, do we want to pay out billions of dollars in ridiculous research grants to universities and support of unknown political parties in the Middle East, or do we want to pay our bond interest?
    As I have said to you previously, Pres. Obama is playing chicken. Do you really believe that he will not pay interest on government bonds if you do not raise the debt limit, I sincerely doubt it. It would be contrary to his egotistical desire to go down in history as the Savior of the world.

Muslim Schools in the US

    One of our Political Associates has brought to my attention the rise of Muslim schools in the US. These schools are being developed by Fethullah Gulen and are called Gulen Schools. For those who wish to see the reference, it is:http://exposethegulenmovement.org/2013/09/27/education-jihad-sweeps-the-country-a-guide-to-the-gulen-schools-in-america/.
    It is said that a Gulen School indoctrinates students in the tenets of radical Islam to bring about a New World Order under Sharia (Islamic law). Other excerpts from the reference are that 85 such schools are already in existence and dozens more are expected to open next year. All are funded by American taxpayers. Fethullah Gulen has separate assets of $25 billion and has condemned terrorism.
    My first reaction is that I am not opposed to any private school in the US that teaches religion. The tolerance for the teaching of any religion is within the First Amendment of the Constitution. That First Amendment also says that there should be no state religion, and by implication, the US government may not support any religious programs. Therefore, we need to immediately determine which branch of the federal government is funding Gulen schools and put a stop to it.
    My second concern is that from our previous experience with Islam, we know that one of its concepts includes the conversion of all peoples to Islam or annihilate them. We also know that Islam allows the use of lying in order to achieve its major goal of a universal Islamic world. Therefore, Gulen's condemnation of terrorism, which would automatically involve the killing of so-called innocent people, is likely to be a falsehood. At least, there is enough justification of suspicion that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should keep close watch on Gulen school teachings. Even If the teaching is found to be intellectually subversive, no action should be taken. Our legal system does not prosecute people for their beliefs nor what they say. Again, this is a First Amendment right. However, the FBI is fully familiar with terrorism, and if any physical actions are taken with respect to any of the Gulen students or alumni progressing to a physical action for terrorism or any aspect of it, the FBI should be quick to prosecute.

Timid Republicans

Open Email to Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,    We are fortunate in having a valuable opinion from another of our Political Advisers. I had previously suggested that you use more rhetoric in your continuing battle against the Congressional Democrats and the President. He makes the point that the Communist/Democrats are now fighting for complete government control, will never give up, and will likely succeed if Republicans continue to maintain a timid response.    Here's what he has to say:

    "It would be nice if the Speaker would attempt to out-talk, but remember the Progressives control 85% or more or the microphones and TV cameras and probably a significant portion of the social sites which they effectively used to dominate the last election.  Even with their massively funded plans, virtual control of the media, a sophisticated campaign organization that made conservatives look like amateur time, it still required their usual and stepped up voter fraud to win.  That does not constitute a mandate, but unfortunately the establishment Republicans appear to be afraid of the controlling party of the massive government structure, the media, Hollywood, unions, and educators and are under the illusion that being nice and trying to be reasonable that the progressives will not be quite so brutal.   Wrong! 

    The other side only recognizes resistance and will never stop until their tyranny is absolute.  The single payer government controlled health care system with their death panels and other provisions of holding all medical information will complete the structure for micro control of every American.  Letting the system go forward with the anticipation that it will fail is not an option, because the control once established can only be reversed by revolution, and that is far worse that standing and fighting today. And, given the aversion to conflict to even fight politically would cause one to conclude that the Communist/Progressives will have won even bigger than they did in Russia after murdering 20 million to get control.

    All one has to do recognize this is to listen to what they say and what is stated in the Obamacare laws.  It is not hard to reach this conclusion.  The only compromise they recognize is how much Republicans and Conservatives are willing to give in the interim with the full understanding and intention that absolute victory is simply delayed for a brief time.  They have been at this for a 100 years and they are certainly not going to be stopped now that they are so close and have so much momentum.  Our only hope is to absolutely defeat them and spend decades trying to undo the massive damage to our liberties and economic system".

Inarticulate Republicans

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
    I recently sent you an article concerning "Who Shutdown the Government" by columnist Thomas Sowell. I later found another article by Mr. Sowell, which I believe is especially pertinent. It is as follows:

    "If the continued existence of mathematics depended on the ability of the Republicans to defend the proposition that two plus two equals four, that would probably mean the end of mathematics and of all the things that require mathematics.
    Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, epitomized what has been wrong with the Republicans for decades when he emerged from a White House meeting last Wednesday, went over to the assembled microphones, briefly expressed his disgust with the Democrats' intransigence and walked on away.
    We are in the midst of a national crisis, immediately affecting millions of Americans and potentially affecting the kind of country this will become if ObamaCare goes into effect -- and yet, with multiple television network cameras focused on Speaker Boehner as he emerged from the White House, he couldn't be bothered to prepare a statement that would help clarify a confused situation, full of fallacies and lies.
Boehner was not unique in having a blind spot when it comes to recognizing the importance of articulation and the need to put some serious time and effort into presenting your case in a way that people outside the Beltway would understand. On the contrary, he has been all too typical of Republican leaders in recent decades.
    When the government was shut down during the Clinton administration, Republican leaders who went on television to tell their side of the story talked about "OMB numbers" versus "CBO numbers" -- as if most people beyond the Beltway knew what these abbreviations meant or why the statistics in question were relevant to the shutdown. Why talk to them in Beltway-speak?
    When Speaker Boehner today goes around talking about the "CR," that is just more of the same thinking -- or lack of thinking. Policy wonks inside the Beltway know that he is talking about the "continuing resolution" that authorizes the existing level of government spending to continue, pending a new budget agreement.
    But, believe it or not, there are lots of citizens and voters outside the Beltway. And what is believed by those people whom too many Republicans are talking past can decide not only the outcome of this crisis but the fate of the nation for generations to come.
    You might think that the stakes are high enough for Republicans to put in some serious time trying to clarify their message. As the great economist Alfred Marshall once said, facts do not speak for themselves. If we are waiting for the Republicans to do the speaking, the country is in big trouble."

Who Shutdown the Government?

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
    The following article was sent to me by a Political Associate. It Is attributed to a well-educated independent black columnist named Thomas Sowell and appeared in Townhall.com:

    "Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
    There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.
    This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
    As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
    Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
    ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
    The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.
Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
    The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?
    If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
    You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.
    When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.
Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
    Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
    None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose".

Government Shutdown and Debt Default

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
    There is an expert opinion that to prepare and produce signs and other barricade items for "park" shutdown would have taken eight months through standard federal bureaucracy.
    This means that Obama planned at least eight months ago to pursue a game of chicken with the Congress on government shutdown. The obvious Obama strategy was to inflict as much pain as possible on the American public and blame it on the Republicans of the House. Fortunately for the American public, the program at least partially backfired when World War II veterans became incensed about their denial of access to their war Memorial and specifically blamed it on Obama.
    Obama is continuing to play the chicken game now with respect to a federal debt default. He claims that unless the debt limit is raised, the default on payment of government debts will be catastrophic. In a Saturday morning program, four out of five interviewees agreed that the claim of debt default is fallacious with respect to availability of funds. However, the group did bring up a good point, which is that Obama has the option of prioritizing how he will spend available funds. If he decides not to pay interest on the federal debt, there is a default. But that is an option on his part. If he chooses the nonpayment of government bond interest, he will blame it on the House Republicans. While he has the bully pulpit as President, your defense must be to out-talk him by presenting facts to the American public.

One Slight Plus for Gun Rights

    The Washington Times says that Gov. Jerry Brown of California has vetoed a bill that would ban future sales of most semi-automatic rifles. The bill was proposed to him by his Democratic legislature, which continued to press for every aspect of gun control they can think of.
    His veto comes as a surprise. Perhaps it is based on the fact that gun rights groups had threatened to sue if the semi--automatic weapons ban became law.
    Whatever the reason, this is a favorable development and absolutely necessary in the continuing battle with Democrats to take away all aspects of firearms from the American public, in spite of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right of the citizens to bear arms and that right should not be infringed.

Speaker Boehner Caves

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,    The Washington Time said that yesterday you gave ground in the debt ceiling fight by offering to raise the nation’s borrowing limit for six weeks, and the White House said President Obama might sign such a measure to avoid default. You proposed the six-week limit increase to the $16.7 trillion debt ceiling in exchange for a White House agreement to talk about a broad set of fiscal issues.
    Bad move on your part. You had the Democrats and the President on the ropes and you let them escape. You obviously know that your proposal of a six-week limit increase in the debt ceiling is real. Any White House agreement to talk about a broad set of fiscal issues is unreal. In subsequent discussion on those issues, for example, you will bring up "let's cut the budget for the Department of Energy". Obama will say "no". That's discussion but doesn't mean any progress. In addition, you know from previous experience that Pres. Obama lies through his teeth.
    You also had an opportunity to explain to the American public that extending the debt ceiling is not necessary to avoid default on payment of government bond interest and many other payments. There is plenty of money in tax receipts to handle those items. You didn't do it, or if you did, it was so weak as to allow Obama to say that he would sign the extension "to avoid default".
    I am severely disappointed. Let's see you now work your way out of this one, keeping in mind previous government experience that once you approve something on a temporary basis, it becomes permanent.

Poll Data Explained

    Pres. Obama's approval rating is 43% with the voting public. That seems high.
    Congress' approval rating with the voting public is 5%. That seems low.
    The voting public is actually composed of 48% Democrats or Democrat leaning versus 43% Republicans or Republican leaning.
    There are a few intellectually sophisticated Democratic voters. Most of these are in government or government supporting with big money, such as George Soros or Barbara Streisand. However, the majority are what Rush Limbaugh calls low information voters. This means that most Democratic voters have no idea of or interest in current issues or the future of government. They vote Democratic on the basis that their forebears voted Democratic for the last several generations. Democrats are considered to be open-minded with a liberal philosophy, and that sounds good. Democrats realize that whenever they have a deficiency of livelihood based on their own incapabilities or lack of effort, government will give them a handout.
    Republican voters are generally reasonably well-educated, successful in business through their own hard work, cognizant of current problems, and concerned about the future of the country as it slowly turns socialistic, with increasing preponderance of takers and decreasing suppliers.
    With that background, it is expected that essentially all Democrats would give Pres. Obama a favorable job approval rating. Since the actual number of 43% is a little lower than the Democratic composition of 48%, it appears that there are a few defectors.
    With respect to the approval rating of Congress, most Democrats would think in terms of the House of Representatives, which is challenging the status quo of government and which are a possible danger to the continued program of government handouts. The result is that Congress will have 0% support from Democrats. On the other hand, many Republicans being concerned more with issues and also probably being more shortsighted with respect to the overall future of government, don't like the present government shutdown and hold the total Congress (Representatives and Senators) responsible. If that number constitutes three quarters of Republican voters or Republican leaners, it means only about one quarter would show Congressional approval. One quarter of 43% Republicans is 10%. This is higher than the observed 5%, but pretty close.

Second Amendment Gun Rights and the Judiciary

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I refer to your form letter regarding further danger to our Second Amendment gun rights through Pres. Obama's efforts to stack the DC Circuit Court with judges favorable to his opinions. Of the 13 federal appellate courts,the D.C. Circuit stands out as the most powerful due to its jurisdiction over regulatory and constitutional matters.    You said you  are a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and you believe it is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to own and use firearms.  To restrict that right would be to undermine the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed citizens the right to keep and bear arms.  That is why you have opposed attempts in the Senate to undermine gun rights, including the confirmation of judicial nominees who do not hold the proper view of the Second Amendment.
    This is an ongoing fight with the Democrats, who want to disarm the public so that in the event of a political revolution, the public will be unable to use firearms to defend themselves against a completely autocratic, shall I say communistic, government.
    In spite of the terminology of the Second Amendment, which says that the individuals rights to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED, those rights have already been substantially infringed. This has primarily been done by a requirement of licensing to carry a concealed weapon, which has been further interpreted as a restriction to carrying an unconcealed weapon. Every little further restrictive addition is not only unconstitutional, but likely to be accepted by government in the same way that licensing has been imposed.
    I strongly suggest you keep up the good fight to avoid subsequent restrictions on the public bearing arms, and also not to forget that licensing is an infringement, which is contrary to the Second Amendment, and such infringement should be eliminated.

The Threat of Communism

Open Email to House Representatives and Senators:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    One of our Political Associates has sent me a summary of a book which clearly explains the importance of Democratic versus Republican contention in Congress. The issue is whether we want the United States to be a Communist country.
    This is what our Associate had to say,
    "This is probably the most concise statement of America’s fight to survive as any I have read in a single speech. 

    David Horowitz, the author of Radical Son was born to Russian Jewish immigrants who came to America for the express purpose of infiltrating American institutions for the purpose of creating a Communist Soviet America.

    When David Horowitz began to realize that Communist Russia murdered over 20 million of its own people to achieve their ends and other Communist countries had to murder over a hundred million more, he begin to conclude that their ideology must be flawed.  David Horowitz’s rather lengthy book chronicled his conversion from being raised as a Communist to become a Constitutional Conservative who understands the extreme difference between the Progressive (what the Communist renamed themselves to hide their true mission) and Conservative ideology.

    The United States of America is the only nation in the history of the world to have a Constitutional Republic where the ultimate power really is vested in the people rather than the people being subjects to the power of government."  

Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Government Shutdown, Dyess Air Force Base, and Endangered Species Act

Open Email to Representative Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    Congratulations on your being a part of the House recommendations to keep significant parts of our government operating, in the face of the 17% partial government shutdown. All of these are nice gestures, and although some are unlikely to pass through the Democratic Senate and the socialistic president, you have made good inroads in establishing with the American people a better image of a caring federal government..
    You also point out that the Air Force has committed to upgrading the housing infrastructure at Dyess Air Force Base. I agree that our Air Force families should not be living under less than average conditions, but I hope we are cautioned to the extent that we don't overdo. As a comparison, the American public was previously incensed at some of the poor living conditions at some of our penal institutions. In the course of time, that has been changed so that prisoners now have a better lifestyle than many unpenalized US citizens.
    Lastly, you say you are part of a working group seeking improvement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Similar to many of the laws that Congress has passed, the Endangered Species Act was completely overdone. It is not the responsibility of people to deprive themselves of opportunities for development of this country's natural resources in order to avoid disturbing the habitat of various non-human organisms. Even on the human level, we found many years ago that the best way to handle Indian problems was to use reservations. We did not set up a reservation wherever an Indian tribe happened to be. In many cases, the Indians were moved to reservations almost 1000 miles away from their original habitat. We can obviously do the same thing with prairie chickens, polar bears, snail darters, and the like. Let's get the Endangered Species Act back on a practical course and not cater to environmental groups, who are now so constituted as to be political forces promoting replacement of our republic form of government with socialism.

Impeach Pres. Obama and Lies on Debt Default

     I had previously emailed Rep. Neugebauer (TX) agreeing with him that it is disgraceful for the Obama administration to have denied access by World War II veterans to their Memorial in Washington.
    One of our Political advisers as also added his own comments. In addition to commenting, he has strongly suggested that the House impeach Pres. Obama for dereliction of duty to the people. I expect an impeachment will go nowhere, because of the presence of heavy Democratic support in the Senate. However, a proposal of impeachment by the House makes a statement that will go into the historical record of Obama's presidency and be part of this legacy. He will then at least pay something for his atrocious commitment to the American public.
    Our Political Advisor had this to say,
"I personally believe that the House is irresponsible if they do not proceed
to impeach the President for his deliberate actions to hurt the American
people. It is another violation of his oath of office duties including his
failure defending this unique Constitution which requires the government to
serve the people rather than rule the people. 
The parks are owned by the people, not the government. Any restriction of
access beyond public safety or actually protection from destruction makes
the Park Rangers (who are entrusted by the people to operate the parks for
the benefit of the people) trespassers and violators of the owners' rights.
In addition, reports of violation of rights of access to leased land or
privately owned land could likely cause government (and the taxpayers) to be
sued, and if that happens, the money should come from the Whitehouse
operational and travel (vacation) budget which does not appear to be
significantly affected by the shut down. 
Certainly the Park Rangers were violating their oath and according to the
Nuremberg trials after WWII, following orders that are unlawful are not a
defense if the actions are criminal as were Hitler's orders (or rather the
orders of his subordinates who knew what their Furor wanted without Hitler
having to actually issuing the orders himself). Obama is following the same
pattern by appointing people who will do his will without Obama having to
issue the orders himself. The President is still responsible, however, as
are his subordinates equally responsible for their despicable actions. 
In addition, blocking a United States Congressman who represents the people,
to perform the lawful action to stop the government from abusing the people,
is a violation of Federal law unless that law has been changed. It has been
over 55 years since I learned of this in Junior High School government
class.
The President is also once again lying to the American people in order to
appeal to the low information voters (and repeated often by the hard left
media) by stating that not raising the debt limit will cause the U.S. to
immediately default on payment of its debt, when by law, the government must
pay the some $55 billion each month in interest first from the over $200
billion in collected revenues that flows into the government each month.
Source from Rush Limbaugh radio program today around 1:15 PM. 

Sen. McCain (AZ) on Egypt

Open Email to Sen. McCain (AZ):

Dear Sen. McCain,
    Thank you for your recent form letter on Egypt, in response to my email of 9/11.
    Congratulations on your decision that the United States must suspend assistance to Egypt and that you have also urged President Obama to suspend U.S. assistance.
    Although we agree on an excellent conclusion, we strongly differ on the reasons, and I will review these one at a time from your form letter.
    You want to withhold giving Egypt money because of the undemocratic practices of the Morsi government.
    Poor reason! I say we should never have been giving Egypt money in the first place , and secondly, what right do you have to tell the Egyptian people or government that they must have Democratic practices?
    You also want to withhold money, because there has been a coup to unseat Pres. Morsi. Poor reason!
    I say you have no responsibility or authority to determine whether the Egyptian military is justified in a coup or not. It is not any of your business.
    You want to withhold money, because civilians are being massacred in Egypt.
    I say you likely don't understand what all the issues are and have no reason to take sides. Again, it is none of your business. Do you believe it is your responsibility to spend US taxpayer money on every situation of injustice or contrivance that you come across in the world? Presumably, this has been true in the past, which is part of why we are facing a US government of insolvency.
    You say you want to restore our relationship and assistance role [to Egypt], which has historically served U.S. national security interests.
    Baloney! I say the US has almost no national security interests in Egypt. If you believe it has, please specify what those national security interests are? In the absence of your comments, I will speculate a bit on what you might believe. We need to stabilize Middle East politics. It can't be done, and it's none of our business. The Egyptians will invade the United States or use an atomic bomb on us. No way!. The Egyptians help us to defend Israel. How? We need access to the Suez Canal to maintain international traffic. Here, you are right on! But, we don't do that by buying Egyptian goodwill. We do it by threat of the use of force through seizing the Canal with our Navy and Marines. With that threat, which involves no payment to Egypt other than standard fees for use of the canal, the Egyptians will be well satisfied to let canal traffic continue. In addition, they will be happy for the external promise of indirect support in the event that one of their neighbors might have designs on canal control.
    Lastly you say that whether in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, or the wider region, the failure of the Obama Administration to use our influence to shape events in this critical part of the world has only diminished our credibility, limited our influence, and constrained our policy options. The events now unfolding in the Middle East will directly impact the national security interests of the United States, and we should not remain disengaged.
    I say it is not up to the Obama administration or to you to shape events in the Middle East. Our credibility, influence, and policy options are not increased by meddling. These items are increased by showing bystanding strength with military and naval forces ready to engage when some specific event actually occurs affects our our national security interests. Keep in mind that your definition of our national security interests is likely much broader than mine. I would consider military action would only be necessary to maintain access to the Suez Canal, support Israel in the event of an attack, eliminate terrorist headquarters and training camps and eliminate the ability to produce a nuclear weapon and/or rockets for deliverance.

    I fear that because of your experience as a Vietnam prisoner of war, you look at the world and US national interests from a distorted view point I respectfully suggest that you get off the tendency to advocate use of military force on every little item in the world that displeases you.