Might Be Idiots

                       By Junius P. Long   If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.   If you have to get your parent's permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.
If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but you don't have to show ID for the right to vote on who
runs the government... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.   If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in  Egypt... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.   If, in the largest city of the country, you can buy two
16-ounce sodas,but not a 24-ounce soda because the
government says a 24-ounce sugary drink might make
you fat... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.   If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hi-jab is only subject to having her neck and head searched because of her religion... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.   If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.   If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher's "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly
acceptable... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.   If hard work and success is rewarded with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.   If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to reward them with 99 weeks of unemployment checks with no requirement to prove they applied for it... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.   If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government... Then you might live in a country run by idiots.   If youre offended by this article, then I'll bet you voted for
the idiots who are running and "ruining" our great country!

 

 

Outrageous Government Inefficiency

The Washington Times reports that the Commerce Department's Inspector General found the US Patent and Trademark Office paid $5 million in salaries to paralegals who had no work to do and spent their work time time shopping, watching TV, walking dogs, etc. They also receive bonuses.
Not only is this typical for US government operations, but it is egregious, when the US Patent and Trademark Office management claims the issuance of patents and trademarks is slow because they have too much work to do.
We need a US Patent and Trademark Office and it should be fixed. However, there are other government operations which could easily be passed to the private sector, such as health care for veterans. Don't hire additional doctors, as they are now considering, rather sell off the hospitals and give veterans free healthcare cards for use in private and public health care facilities.

Corporate Income Taxes

According to the Washington Times, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is castigating American companies in international business from not paying corporate US taxes. Here's the text from Bernie Sanders:
"One out of four American corporations already pay no federal income tax. Now, more and more of them have come up with a new scheme to dodge U.S. taxes by moving their headquarters overseas. Bernie filed legislation to ban those businesses from receiving U.S. government contracts. “I have a message for these corporate deserters: You can't be an American company only when you want corporate welfare from American taxpayers or you want lucrative contracts from the federal government.” The giant drug maker AbbVie made no bones about the fact that ducking U.S. taxes is why it hopes to take over its European rival. Walgreen’s, the giant drugstore chain launched at a Chicago storefront, may move its corporate headquarters to Switzerland to avoid U.S. taxes. They are part of a growing corporate trend. Bernie had a word for it. “It’s treason,” he said."
Now let's look at the real facts.
US-based international corporations generally have subsidiaries or joint ventures overseas. When those subsidiaries or joint ventures make a profit, US-based corporations have an option to either return their profits to the United States or keep it overseas for further investment. If the profit is kept overseas it is not taxable by the IRS, but those profits tend to accumulate overseas and investment opportunities may decline. In addition, stockholders of the US parent may want dividends, which pressures the parent companies to return the foreign profits to the US. On return of the foreign profits to the US, the IRS immediately slaps on a corporate income Tax. The net result is that he US-based international corporation may delay its payment of income tax, but eventually the income tax must be paid as the profits are repatriated to the US.
We now see another phase of evolution in corporate finance. That is, US based corporations do not have to continue as US corporations. They have the option of converting to a foreign-based corporation. The advantage of conversion is a lower income tax rate in the country where the corporation is newly based. To me, this makes good business sense. Why pay more taxes than necessary? As a stockholder, I am interested in dividends. If the foreign country takes less tax than the US, there is more profit left for my dividend. My corporation is to me a money machine. I don't care whether it's based in the US or some foreign country. Since Sen. Sanders is concerned about that, let him reduce the US corporate tax rate to the lower equivalents of foreign countries.
There is another aspect which is even more egregious. There should be no US corporate tax. Companies based in the US have their profits taxed based on profits generated in the US and also repatriated from abroad. When that tax is subtracted from the profit, there is less less for my dividend. In addition, as a stockholder, when I file my Form 1040, I must pay a second tax on my dividends. In other words, the US government is first hitting my corporation in taxing its profits and then again taxes me on whatever profit is left and paid as dividend. This is clearly double taxation, which means tax it once and then tax it again. If you leave it up to Congress which has an insatiable need for money, you can be sure it is looking for ways to tax it a third time and a fourth time, etc.

The Humane Act

Open Email to Sen. John Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
I have read your general email concerning unaccompanied children at our southern border.
I strongly suggest that you are on the wrong track.
You say the southern border is currently ground-zero for a growing humanitarian crisis.
It Is not a humanitarian crisis! It is an attack on our southern border! A few of the children may have been abused in the transit from their home countries through Mexico to the US but the likelihood is that it is no greater than normal child abuse even in the United States. It becomes a humanitarian crisis only because you and others who apparently wish to increase the possibility of Democratic votes in the future US electorate, want these children to stay. The obvious answer to the non-humanitarian crisis is to send these children back to their home countries by plane as quickly as possible. This will automatically decrease future influxes.
I also suggest you do not fiddle around with another new law, which you call the Humane Act. As you describe it, this is only another mechanism by which you want to convert attackers into human refugees. If you want to do anything on a law, make it a clear designation that any children showing up at any US border without proper documentation will be disallowed entry and immediately flown back to their home countries.
For those who may be reading this email and are abusers of compassion, I say those persons should make every effort to work with the presidents of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to improve conditions in the home countries to minimize child-abuse. Do not use the usual Democratic/socialistic trick of taking it to a different level, wherein US citizens become responsible for what happens in those countries and take on the responsibility for ostensibly solving the problem.

Mobile "Bugs" for Surveillance

        The Washington Time says the U.S. Army is developing tiny spies called "pocket drones", for the next big war.
Hooray for technology! If you think about it, a pocket drone is a mobile "bug". Bugs have been used for a long time to gather intelligence on the plans of enemies or our potential enemies. The use of bugs in embassies and consulates is well known, in addition to tracking down criminals.
Which leads us to question why mobile bugs (pocket drones) should be limited only to the use of soldiers for the next "big war". As soon as they are developed, let's use pocket drones to obtain better evidence for the conviction of criminals, aid the CIA to determine what our enemies and friends are doing and which they have not been revealed to us, and generally track down terrorists and drug cartel operators.

Rep. Michael McCall's Newsletter

Open Email to Rep. Michael McCaul - 10th District of Texas:

Dear Rep. McCaul,
Thank you for sending me your weekly newsletter.
I note from its content that you are now batting zero! You mentioned four specific actions, for which you seem to be proud, but in fact are instrumental in helping to convert the US to a Marxist society.
You say, this week the House of Representatives passed the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act backspace, which modifies and permanently extends the American Opportunity Tax Credit for tuition, which will help our children to achieve their educational goals without going into crippling student debt or putting undue financial burdens on families.
Is there some reason that I and other US citizens should be making concessions to educate other people's children because you say it should be so? Students should have an obligation to educate themselves with the aid of their families. You say "undue" financial burdens on families. What makes it "undue"? Is the cost of a father feeding his children also an undue financial burden on his family? When you pass a law like this you only disturb the socialogical market. In this case, you are indirectly funneling taxpayer money into universities. It's wrong and you should quit meddling.
You say, the House also passed the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act.
This legislation requires individuals to include their Social Security number on a tax return in order to qualify for the Child Tax Credit. This will result in a savings of over $20 billion.
This one sounds kind of dumb to me. If you're talking about federal income tax Form 1040, there is a space to fill in the Social Security number. If you don't fill it in, the IRS presumably indicates it as a nonfiling. Consider also two paragraphs above. Why should taxpayers be required to support children through a federal mandate? It is the responsibility of families to support their own children through their own efforts, normally considered work. If they do not do so, it is a matter of child abuse and the children can with existing laws be removed from the families as the parents serve jail time. When children are in institutions, I will grant that taxpayers have a responsibility to support them, but this is far different than giving money to indolent parents to hopefully use in the support of their children. What about the saving of $20 billion? How is it saved? You mean that the federal government will not give out $20 billion of taxpayer money to indolent parents? If that's a saving, why not go for the big one and cut off all Child Credits on federal income taxes?
You say, in an effort to continue to honor the Greatest Generation and support the Honor Flight Network, the House passed the Honor Flight Act, which directs TSA to provide an expedited screening process for veterans traveling on flights operated by the Honor Flight Network.
More dumb. The Honor Flight Network is a composite of private organizations dedicated to helping veterans visit war memorials involving themselves at various locations, particularly Washington DC. Notice that I said private organizations. It has no relationship to government. Suddenly government wants to get into the act by directing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to establish a process for providing expedited and dignified passenger screening services for veterans traveling on an Honor Flight to visit war memorials built and dedicated to honor their service. Things were going along just fine with the private operation. Why does government suddenly have to get involved? Is it really significant to veterans that they now don't have to take their shoes off at airports, when everyone else does? While you're at it, why not a law requiring all citizens to tip their hats when they come across a known veteran? Come on! Get out of the business of minutia and start getting down to cases of how you can best allow citizens to operate within their own country.
You say, finally we continued to combat the cruel and predatory practice of human trafficking by passing several pieces of legislation aimed at stopping, deterring and preventing human trafficking while ensuring we are apprehending those responsible for these heinous crimes. One of the bills that passed, the Human Trafficking Detection Act of 2014, was a bill I cosponsored and passed out of the Homeland Security Committee. This bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to train DHS personnel how to effectively deter, detect, disrupt, and prevent human trafficking. This legislation is a direct result of the field hearing I chaired in Houston on human trafficking earlier this year.
Here again, there was no need for more legislation. Human Trafficking is only another politically correct term for kidnapping. We have plenty of laws regarding kidnapping, and everybody knows what kidnapping is.
We don't need to train federal government agents to recognize kidnapping.
Most kidnapping cases can be prosecuted by the states. There is also a futility in any federal effort of training, deterring, disrupting and preventing kidnapping, when the Atty. Gen. of the United States, regards these items is insignificant and does not bother to prosecute known kidnappers. Why not get on with the main point of in some way making the Atty. Gen. enforce current federal kidnapping laws?

Gov. Use of National Guard at the Border

The Washington Times says House Republicans will call today for decisive action to end the border crisis, proposing a deployment of National Guard troops and accelerated deportation hearings for unaccompanied children inundating the U.S. The proposals from a task force will aim to fix the most urgent problems quickly, “stemming the flow of [unaccompanied alien children] and securing the border right now,” the Republican aide said. “This is about solutions right now.”
Note that the Republican statement involves "unaccompanied alien children". However recent reports from the news media indicate that while unaccompanied alien children are receiving the spotlight at the southern border, they are only a small percentage of the illegal entries. The vast majority are adults with various agendas.
The second point of note is that this will be an exercise in futility. House Republicans may call today for decisive action to end the border crisis, but that still does not mean that the House has established a bill to do this through floor vote. Even if the floor vote comes to pass, you can be sure that the Democratic Senate will not support the House position and any intended legislation will die. If through some extraordinary occurrence, the House and Senate are on the same wavelength, Pres. Obama will veto the bill with another result of dead dead dead.
This means that House Republicans will be basically ranting and raving, while Pres. Obama has no intention of listening to them.
The only significant affect on possibly reducing the influx of illegals through the southern border was Gov. Perry's deployment of 1000 state National Guard to assist the Federal Border Control agents. The weakness of Gov. Perry's action is that the federal Border Control agents have their hands tied to do anything constructive from orders through the various agencies reporting to Pres. Obama. Since the Border Control agents can do nothing constructive, then Perry's 1000 state National Guard can equally do nothing.
I believe the stated cost of the Perry operation will be $12 million a month. Rather than that amount being a cost to the state of Texas, I strongly suggest that Gov. Perry bill the federal government, with justification that this is only doing a job that should have been done by the federal government. He likely will get a favorable response in the House, which normally controls the purse strings, but the Senate and the President will probably veto any actual payment. This means that the state of Texas will be stuck with the bill and the only justification for that is to change the rules of engagement so that the 1000 National Guard members are not assisting Federal Border Control agents but are actually serving as State Border Control agents, with the power to incarcerate or immediately return illegal aliens to their home countries.
Here are the rules under which a governor can use the National Guard:
When National Guard units are not under federal control, the governor is the commander-in-chief of the units of his or her respective state .
States are free to employ their National Guard forces under state control for state purposes and at state expense as provided in the state's constitution and statutes. In doing so, governors, as commanders-in-chief, can directly access and utilize the Guard's federally assigned aircraft, vehicles and other equipment so long as the federal government is reimbursed for the use of fungible equipment and supplies such as fuel, food stocks, etc. This is the authority under which governors activate and deploy National Guard forces in response to natural disasters. It is also the authority under which governors deploy National Guard forces in response to man-made emergencies such as riots and civil unrest, or terrorist attacks.
The Governor can activate National Guard personnel to "State Active Duty" in response to natural or man-made disasters or Homeland Defense missions. State Active Duty is based on State statute and policy as well as State funds. Soldiers and Airmen remain under the command and control of the Governor. 

Conversion to Marxism through Universities

Open Email to Speaker Boehner and Senators Cornyn and Cruz:

Dear Speaker Boehner and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
I recently presented an essay concerning the persecution of a conservative professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW). I made the point that 52% of funding for university budgets is supplied by the federal government. With such high financial control, our Marxist federal government requires within the Universities an equal degree of Marxism. Note also that it is the House of Representatives who supplies the funding through various federal agencies.
Having considered my essay, one of our Political Associates had an additional comment. Since most universities have a liberal/Marxist agenda as established by the federal government, most students and their parents believe that is the norm. They then contribute to the situation by paying student tuition and unwittingly become liberal/Marxist oriented through their attendance as students.

The Futility of House of Representative Claims

Open Email to Political Associate:

Dear Political Associate,
You have been impressed with Ann Wagner, House of Representative for the Second District of Missouri.
I have read Rep. Wagner's recent newsletter and note the following:
1. She is supporting a bipartisan solution that will quickly and compassionately reunite border children with their families in their homeland.   
2. It’s past time to secure the border. She is a cosponsor of legislation that will instruct the Department of Homeland Security to finally secure our southern border. She is also calling for the President to send the National Guard to assist in these efforts.  
3. House Republicans will not give the president a blank check - only limited funding to deal with this crisis.

This rhetoric is very similar to that of Sarah Palin, except that Sarah Palin goes somewhat further in calling for the impeachment of Pres. Obama.
Another similarity is that neither of their efforts will go anywhere.
Let's take Ann Wagner House Republican first.
A bipartisan solution to reunite border children with their families in their homeland will not go anywhere. It will be only a request to the President from the House, and Pres. Obama will ignore it. Cosponsoring registration that will instruct the Department of Homeland Security to finally secure the southern border will equally go nowhere; Harry Reid in the democratically controlled Senate will not allow a floor vote. House Republicans may not give the Presiden t a blank check, but he will overspend the allocated amount by use of an executive order claiming that the border situation is a national crisis.
Now let's take a look at Sarah Palin's claim for impeachment of Pres. Obama.
The House may impeach the President by a simple majority vote. The impeached President is then subject to trial by the Senate. To remove the president from office, a two thirds vote is required in the Senate, which is impossible under Senate Democratic rule, with Harry Reid in charge.
Therefore, neither the proposals of Rep. Wagner nor Sarah Palin can effectively accomplish anything under present conditions of leadership in the Senate. The key will be the November election, with the necessity of strongly ousting Democrats from the Senate and replacing them with Republicans. At that point, an impeachment followed by a conviction could remove Pres. Obama from office. With respect to legislation, that will still go nowhere, because although bills may be passed by both the House and Senate, they will likely still be vetoed by Pres. Obama. He will similarly ignore all requests from the Legislature that he doesn't like.

Misleading Innuendos of the Obama Administration

Open email to House Speaker Boehner and Senators Cornyn and Cruz:

Dear Speaker Boehner and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
A Political associate recently posed three questions as follows:
1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens while giving billions in foreign aid to countries that hate us.
I suppose the first two of these questions are a matter of propaganda originating from the Obama Administration and liberals in our society. I realize that the Congress is not in the propaganda business, but perhaps there is some way that you can refute those erroneous positions and present to the public a better perspective of the true facts.
With respect to the military the House supplies money and the House and Senate together tell Commander-In-Chief Obama what they expect him to do. Are you fulfilling your responsibility or are you letting Pres. Obama do whatever he wishes?

Money Talks

A Political Associate brought to my attention a court case, reported in the journal for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). I believe it is significant, because it is illustrative of how the federal government is spending your taxpayer money in conversion of the US to a Marxist society and economy. It involves a professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW).
Dr. Michael Adams began his career at UNCW in 1993 as an outspoken atheist and liberal. During this period, he was widely praised in the university for his teaching and scholarship and achieved tenure in 1998 without any controversy.
In 2000, Dr. Adams began a conversion to conservatism. He began writing a column for Townhall.com that was often sharply critical of leftist excesses in universities nationwide, as well as in his own university.
In 2006, after compiling an impressive record of scholarship and accumulating multiple outside teaching awards and honors, Dr. Adams submitted an application for promotion to full professor. University officials, however, denied his promotion in a process where they applied a made-up promotion standard that contradicted the faculty handbook, passed along false information about his academic record, deceptively edited documents to influence the faculty vote, explicitly discussed his constitutionally protected viewpoint, and allowed a faculty member with an obvious and outrageous conflict of interest to cast a vote against him.
Dr. Adam sued the University and the case evolved into a jury trial. The jury unanimously found that UNCW retaliated unfairly against Dr. Adams, and the trial court awarded Dr. Adams a promotion to full professor, back pay, and attorneys’ fees. The case finally ended in a settlement agreement where UNCW agreed to drop its appeal, promote Dr. Adams to full professor, increase his salary to the appropriate rate, award him back pay, protect him from future retaliation, and award a substantial attorneys’ fee.
While many of us conservatives applaud the outcome of this controversy, the real question is why UNCW had an original liberal philosophy and later persecuted a conservative. This is especially significant, when we normally consider universities to be the basis of academic freedom.
The answer lies in the Obama Administration's political philosophy and in money.
The University of North Carolina Wilmington obtains 52% of its income from "funding provided by taxpayers". That money comes from the collection of state and federal taxes from individuals and corporations. The portion supplied by the federal government is passed along through the Department of Education. It also does not include government funding through student aid. In other words, the operation of the university depends primarily on funding from taxpayers passed along to the University through state and federal government. It is also well-known in any society that the person or organization supplying the money calls the shots. In this case, the "shots" are called by the federal government in the form of Marxist requirements. The federal government is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but the people apparently pay no attention, and the federal government proceeds with its Marxist policies unimpeded. In only a very few cases do we have some semblance of equality as determined in Dr. Michael Adams court case against UNCW.

Illegal Immigrant Children at the Border

The Washington Times says that newly two-thirds of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children requesting asylum this year have had their initial applications approved by the "Asylum Officer".
What is an Asylum Officer?
There are eight Asylum Offices in the US. Asylum Officers conduct interviews with applicants for asylum at the eight US Asylum Offices, and also travel around the country performing asylum interviews at other government offices. The number of Asylum Officers is not easily determined, but last year there were 21 open positions for Asylum Officer.
Therefore, when it is stated that two thirds of the illegal immigrant children have been approved for asylum by the Asylum Officer, this is a misrepresentation.
Let's go a little further.
Asylum Officers work for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is a component of the United States Department of Homeland Security. The Director of Homeland Security is a cabinet position reporting to Pres. Obama. Therefore, Pres. Obama calls the shots on what Asylum Officers are supposed to do.
The House Judiciary Committee suggests that according to the operations of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, those kids surging across the border who ask to stay will likely be able to gain admission to the U.S.
Why only two thirds approved for staying in the US, rather than all of them? Unclear. It's probably a political maneuver on the part of the Obama Administration.
The Obama Administration is claiming that the children are fleeing dangerous conditions that they cannot return to, and is signaling that it will be far tougher to deport most of the children.
Baloney. "Dangerous conditions" is a fact of life in the world, and compared to the United States, probably 90% of the world population is living under dangerous conditions. Does this mean we should be accepting asylum from all that 90% that might apply?
With respect to "far tougher to deport most of the children", that's also baloney. What could be simpler than putting them on an airplane and sending them back to their home countries. Let's remember they are not US citizens and are not entitled to court hearings or other mishmash that would normally delay their return to home countries.

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

Pres. Obama is continually quoted as having had no response from Congress on Immigration Reform.
It appears that President Obama is like many people. If he doesn't like the answer to a question, he ignores the answer.
In the case of Immigration Reform, Pres. Obama interprets immigration reform as amnesty to new immigrants entering the US illegally and those who have also entered illegally as much as 20 or 30 years ago.
To better understand the situation, we need a clear understanding of amnesty. The US has immigration laws which basically say immigrants must apply for entrance to the US as immigrants through the US State Department. This puts them on a list of allowable entries and when their name comes up for approval, they may enter. We call that a legal entry. However, persons who do not want to go through the standard immigration procedure, may physically enter the US by secretive border crossing. We call that an illegal entry, because the action did not conform to US immigration laws.
There have been many millions of people who have entered the US under the secretive or illegal method and we call those persons illegal immigrants. They have broken the US Immigration Laws.
We also need to understand the meaning of "amnesty". It means that we recognize you have broken a law, but not only will we not prosecute, we will forgive you for the law breaking and allow you all the benefits and privileges that would accrue to you if you had not broken the law. This is similar to a robber taking $1 million from a bank and going into hiding. The authorities then say through public announcements that they forgive the robber for his action. He can keep the million dollars, and the authorities just would like to know who he is. Kind of ridiculous?
Going back to Pres. Obama versus Congress on the amnesty situation for illegal immigrants, Congress has already replied. It has not passed a law granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. That's an answer to Pres. Obama's request, whether he wants to accept it or not.

Illegal Immigrant Children in the White House

The US Border Control Is an agency of US Customs and Border Protection, which is an agency of the US Department of Homeland Security, the director of which is a cabinet position reporting to Pres. Obama. In simpler terms, Pres. Obama tells Border Control Agents what they must do.
From the actions of the US Border Control Agents, it is apparent that their orders from Pres. Obama are to allow illegal immigrant children access to the US, rather than immediate deportation back to their home countries.
Since Pres. Obama appears to be favorable to integrating illegal immigrant children into our society, I suggest he show a good example by taking a couple of them into the White House and handling the expense of their indoctrination to US culture, education, and room and board as an expense to his salary, as opposed to a cost to the taxpayers.

Political Fallout on Child Immigrants

Open email to House Speaker Boehner and Senators Cornyn and Cruz:

Dear Speaker and Senators,
The Washington Times says that while the Democrats were instrumental in trying to obtain illegal child immigration to bolster future Democratic voters, the situation got out of hand. The tremendous surge of immigrants has for most Americans put a negative connotation on the operation, holding Democrats responsible for the fiasco.
The Times also says that Congress will have a problem in voting for higher spending and changing the law to allow faster deportations. The problem is said to be loss of Hispanic votes if congressional members appear to be against immigration rights.
Dear Speaker and Senators, let me assure you that the present status of demographics shows that so-called traditional conservatives outnumber the even higher new increase of Hispanic voters. In addition, many Hispanic voters are against "free" entry by illegal immigrants, when they had to take their turns waiting in line.
If you are concerned about reelection, you need to think clearly whether the threat of Hispanic vote loss will be more than the number of voters opposed to illegal immigration. I am suggesting that the threat of Hispanic vote loss will be insignificant.

House Funding for Illegal Immigrants

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
We now have proof that our suspicion of the Obama Administration program of bringing illegal immigrants and especially children into the country is a reality. We still don't know the purpose, but will continue to suspect that the objective is to increase the percentage of democratic/socialistic US voters in the future.
In a deceptive maneuver, the Obama Administration has been transmitting funds to churches and other benevolent organizations to care for the immigrant influx, so that the public does not perceive obvious government involvement.
According to one of our Political Associates;
,--Over a three-year period (2010-2013), the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston received $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project"'
--In 2013, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from DHS for “citizenship and education training" with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services."
--From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program."
Snopes is silent on the subject. Until I receive legitimate denial, I will consider the above "believable".
However I am more specifically disturbed by the fact that the only way the Obama Administration could give away $78 million was for the House of Representatives to supply the funding.
May I strongly suggest that the House pay much closer attention to targeted funding, so that the Administration does not accumulate a slush fund to use however it desires.

Earmarks

Fox News analysts were discussing earmarks this morning. This seems to be some confusion in terminology, which we ought to straighten out.
The term "earmarks" has a bad connotation. To the general public and apparently also to the government, it means "pork" spending, which in turn means specifically wasted money. A well-known example is the designation of money to a congressional district to build a bridge for a road that went nowhere. In this case, the congressional district obtained federal tax money, which put local people to work building a bridge. However building the bridge was an exercise in futility, much the same as the other traditional example that digging a hole and filling it in makes work, but there's no gain.
On the other hand "earmarks" is the designation of funds for specific projects. The more general descriptive term is "targeted" spending. In this case, "targeted" spending means the designation of funds for specific operations. The targets may be unreasonable, in which case, they would qualify as "earmarks", or the targets might be legitimate operation. Such legitimate spending would be illustrated by House funding for a program to sell off all Veterans Administration physical facilities in a program to convert the VA to a market system. Another example of reasonable target spending would be the allocation of funds to Homeland Security for the purpose of detecting nuclear bomb devices from entering the country. An example of an "earmark" would be to put an additional 1000 security inspectors on duty at the Lubbock airport.
As we consider the above examples, it becomes apparent that "targeted" spending must be an inherent part of government operations. But obviously, judgment must be made as to whether the targets are logically justifiable or fall under the category of "earmarks". Since the House of Representatives allocates funding, it must also be quite careful in specifying uses to which said funding will be applied. Up to now that has not been the case. The House has passed bills for funding which easily allow the misdirection of many of those funds to "earmarks". This will obviously require more work on the part of some members of the House in defining the specifics of the funding operation, but that is their job. Many Representatives see their job as bringing porkbarrel or earmarks back to their home district. That view is justified by voters, many of which say to candidates, "What funding have you brought back from Washington for our district?" In other words, voters are demanding earmarks. But it is also the responsibility of Congress to do the right thing for the country, which many times will avoid acceding to local public demand for earmarks. This puts the future of their job more in jeopardy, but the question is whether candidates have sufficient character to do the right thing or whether they will fall into the deep pot of satisfying a local demand for deceit, with resultant detriment to the country as a whole.
One way to reduce the heat on congressional candidates is to establish term limits on their allowable duration in office. Knowing that they will be out of a job at a specific time will then encourage them to do the right thing in funding allocations. However, few people in any kind of a job will automatically declare a self-imposed date of resignation. Congressional members are no exception. It will be up to voters to change their attitudes from considering only their local situations to that which includes the total good for the country. As we look at the $17 trillion debt, which has been caused by unreasonable targeted funding, the public could possibly be made aware of the fact that the country could become bankrupt and no longer a desirable place in which to live. This will require some real selling, but it seems to me possible. Our founding fathers put their lives on the line to establish a total government, which if successful would be advantageous for all parties even at the local level. The present situation is no different in concept. The big difference is that there were only a couple of dozen founding fathers who could affect the position. We now have millions of voters.

Kids Flying to Central America

Open Email to Santa Cruz:

Dear Santa Cruz,
I read your email newsletter on illegal immigrant children in our southern border.
A couple of planeloads of kids from the southern border back to their home countries in Central America will solve the problem immediately.
Please arrange it.

Cost of Handling Immigrant Children

Dear Speaker Boehner,
Pres. Obama has asked for $3.7 billion to handle immigrant children at our southern border. He says that such amount is required to pay for schooling, health care and lawyers.
That's ridiculous! You and House members control the purse strings, and I strongly encourage you not to fall into this socialistic trap.
Obviously, some money is needed to handle the situation. The logical way is to estimate how much it will cost to round up the kids, put them on airplanes, and take them back to their home countries. I suspect it can be done for a few million dollars, which would be 1000 times less than has been requested. We don't need schooling, healthcare, nor lawyers.

Handling Immigrant Children

Someone on Fox News this morning said that handling illegal immigrant children on our southern border is a very complicated situation.
Wrong! It's not complicated at all. It only becomes complicated if you want it to become complicated.
The solution is simple. Put the kids on airplanes destined for three stops; Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. If they are old enough to respond, ask them which country they want to be dropped off at and then do so. For those who are indecisive, just drop them off at the last stop. If the airport officials in each of those countries seem to react adversely, send a US military escort with each planeload to facilitate the departure at each destination.

Private Versus Government Largess

One of our Political Associates recently reported that a week ago, Abilene Christian University received the largest donation in its history.  Three donors pledged $75 million for new construction on the campus.  New science buildings and stadiums will be in the plans for the university.  Also, renovation will be done to the Bennett Auditorium which was built in 1929 with funds from L.P. Bennett of Denver City.
This information is especially interesting in light of Pres. Obama's obvious program of changing the financial structure of the US from private enterprise to that of complete government control.
The Obama administration continues to hand out billions of dollars to universities under the guise of objective research and development projects, but in fact those grants are tainted with the unspecified implication that the recipients must come up with research project answers, which are favorable to a government promoted program. For example, a university professor recipient of a grant on global warming, must come up with a research results which confirms that deleterious climate change is caused by man-made global warming. No further grants to a professor would be considered, if his research results showed that there was any question about the assumed relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global warming.
Conversely, the record shows that donations to universities by private individuals are almost universally altruistic based on philanthropic considerations, which have no political agenda. It is only on the basis of this private largess that one could hope to present to our young people the opportunity for a fully rounded education, as opposed to leftist or other political programs being promoted by government.
Hooray for the private donors! May they hopefully continue to exist with the present government apparently dedicated to their destruction!

IRS Duplicity

The Washington Times reports that an Internal Revenue Service employee was suspended by the IRS for 100 days for using his job at the agency’s help line to try to convince callers to vote for President Obama,
An excellent political move on the part of the IRS! In so doing, the IRS is saying, “See how clean and fair we are?” Notice that the employee was not fired. He was only given a 3 ½-month suspension, and even though it doesn’t say so, the chances are that he continues to receive his salary.
But the key point is that in the overall context of the IRS being non-political, that is a drop in the bucket compared to recent information that Lois Lerner had told IRS employees to give no information to Congress.
Remember that Congress is the boss. It set up the IRS and has an Oversight Committee to assure that the IRS is continuing to do the job as Congress had originally requested. When Congress is shut off from information from their employees, the IRS is an obviously autocratic operation.
IRS, who are you trying to fool with a 3 ½-month suspension of a single employee; yourself, the public, or Congress?

Illegal Immigrant Children

Open Fax to Rep. Michael McCall:

Dear Rep. McCall,

          I read your statement concerning the influx of illegal immigrant children at our southern borders.

          I am pleased to suggest that you appear to be generally on the right track in handling the problem. However, I suggest more specifics.

          Any new attempts at entry by illegal immigrant children at the southern border should be immediately declined. Don’t let them in! For those who may be confused, this is not a humanitarian problem. Since these children have been able to come from their homes in Central America, they are obviously not starving, in medical debilitation or showing evidence of having been physically abused in their home countries. Just deny them entrance! As soon as you allow them to cross the border and enter into a detention facility, we are faced with tremendous problems of being physically unable to contact their families, with justification that the families are legitimate, or expect to handle any legal problems in court. I repeat, do not let them in!

          Those that have already entered and are in detention facilities, they should be rounded up, put on available school buses and driven back to their home countries. This will require transit visas through Mexico. The Mexican government will be obligated to supply such bases, since it is only the reverse of how they arrived at our southern borders in the first place. If the Mexican government denies transit visas, it should be highly publicized that the Mexican government has been instrumental in attacking our southern borders. Under those conditions, give up the transit by bus program and fly them to their home countries, bypassing Mexican airspace if necessary.

          Notice that I don’t want to confuse the issue by engaging in other aspects of a discussion. All of that is an important. Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants and should not be allowed to enter or stay in the US, if they have already entered. Forget subsequent needs for their education, the fact that they may grow up to be Democratic voters, etc. Concentrate only on the fact that we do not allow immigrants to enter into this country illegally, no matter what their ages.

Communal Cars

          One of our political associates referred me to an article by Page and Brin, who are the cofounders of Google. The article basically covers how a “brave New World” should be, but there is a specific reference to elimination of private ownership on automobiles, with a substitution of communal cars that would give door-to-door service. The reference is http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-brin-we-want-to-end-individual-car-ownership/?tag=nl.e497&s_cid=e497&ttag=e497&ftag=CAD5920658.

          Our political associate asked for my comments, which are as follows:

          We already have communal transportation in the form of airplanes, trains, buses, taxis and rental cars. Fortunately, most of these systems are not owned by the government, which is why they work reasonably well. Those portions that are owned by government are susceptible to political manipulation, fraud, and general inefficiency through lack of incentive by government managers. Consider the inefficiencies and high cost to taxpayers of the Amtrak system. These are also the basic reasons why socialism in general doesn’t work.

          One man says he has an hour-long commute to and from work each day, involving two bus rides and a 15-minute walk at either end. He would welcome the door-to-door service a self-driving communal car would offer.

          He hasn’t considered that the greater the service the greater the cost. If he is thinking that the cost of the operation would be on government, he has to consider adding 50% for inefficiency, all of which will be reflected in his taxes, so he really pays in the long run. He would also eliminate his half-hour walk each day, which would probably knock off 10 years of his life. Would he like to shorten his life? If he still likes the idea, he can now hire a private vehicle and driver to pick him up at his house and take him to work and back. It would cost him a bundle, but no more than the total cost to somebody if government pays for the service through taxes

          If he doesn’t like the bus rides and the walking, he has another alternative. He can quit his job and arrange to go on disability. He can continue a reasonable lifestyle with food stamps, housing subsidies, etc. he can also get door-to-door transportation by city minibuses to take him to the mall and back. He can have a great time shopping for shoelaces and other low-cost items. When the minibus takes him home, he can spend the rest of the day watching television or calling his friends on a cell phone supplied by government.

          Perhaps there are many people who would like the above lifestyle, but I believe it is not inherent in the human spirit. At least not for me. If I want door-to-door service, I’ll pay for it. If I can’t pay for it, I’ll do without. In no way will I ever expect someone else to pay for it through a tax program.

The Power of Harry Reid

The Washington Times has a long article on the power of Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. The article involves mostly a complaint that Harry Reid shows partiality toward Democratic proposals and suppresses Republicans proposals.
Complaints are cheap and many, but let's look at the facts.
The majority of the Senate is Democratic, and this situation was imposed by the votes of the American public. With that, a person, such as Harry Reid, automatically becomes the Democratic majority leader and is in control of the Senate. It may be that the American public did not want that, but based upon the vote, there is no indication it did not.
If the American public wants an elimination of the Democratic majority and Harry Reid, as majority leader, it can easily do so in the next November election. There are only four months to wait.
Meanwhile, one of the complaints is that just 14 Senate bills have been signed into law so far this year. That’s nine fewer than at the same point in 2013. Why this is a complaint, I'm not sure. I interpret all laws is restrictive. Even those giving special advantages to some persons, simultaneously do damage to others who have to pay for it. The fewer laws we generate now the better, and in fact, we should be undoing many of the laws previously passed. The fact that Harry Reid has been able to cut back the number of new laws is favorable. The only problem is that few new laws are likely disadvantageous to the development of the country.

Shark Attack

          Those of you who read me know that I take serious objection to most of the actions that Pres. Obama has taken as President. It is apparent to me that his objective is to convert the US to a second rate country both morally and financially.

          Since he has been elected by the people and subsequently reelected, the question has always been, “How did this happen?” We previously passed this off as the action of low information voters and the ability of the Democratic Party to unify them into a controlling voting block.

          However, there is another group to consider in the voting. That is sophisticated intellectuals. These are people who are reasonably intelligent and have had educations in our colleges and universities. But, we need to consider whether those educations have led to the individual’s ability to apply logic and proper judgment.

          I was listening to Fox News this morning, which was covering the episode of a swimmer in California being bitten by a white shark. Most of the news media, including Fox, have characterized this as a shark attack. However, the person being interviewed claimed that this was NOT a shark attack.

          That person being interviewed is a perfect example of the sophisticated intellectual, who comes to a wrong conclusion, presumably because he does not apply logic and have a clear understanding of the English language.

          Almost anybody, except our sophisticated intellectuals, will agree that if a shark bites a man, it is a shark attack. One may argue about why the shark attacked, but the fact remains that it was a shark attack.

          Since our sophisticated intellectuals cannot recognize facts and call them as same, it is apparent that if there are enough of them, they have a strong influence on the vote of who will be President, and their votes will not be favorable to the continued development of our country.

          Are there any suggestions on how we can correct this situation?

Washington Redskins Trademark

          I am disappointed in the US Patent and Trademark Office. I had thought that it was one of the few government agencies that was doing its job rather than operating on a political bias. I was wrong.

          The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which is part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ruled last month that the name of the Washington Redskins was disparaging to American Indians and canceled the trademark registration.

US

          The Washington Redskins is appealing the decision. Let’s hope it works out favorably and they can continue to have trademark protection, as they once had and which is completely justifiable under the regulations of the P&T office. There have been no complaints from the American public concerning the name, including no objections from American Indians themselves. 

Earmarks

Open Email Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,

          I saw your recent statement on your opposition to earmarks. If we take this in the right context, I am all for it.

          However, we must avoid confusion.

          Wikipedia says an earmark is a provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in their home state or district.

          While we obviously will want to be as specific as possible on funding allocations for needed government operations, we want to avoid at all costs pork spending for home states or districts.

          Therefore, we will need earmarks for use in legitimate funding and avoid earmarks for pork projects. This will take some attention on the part of House members to differentiate between the two.