Open Email to Sen. Cruz (Texas):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for sending your form letter comments on the National Defense Authorization Act. For others reading this email, I have copied your form letter below.
I don't recall ever raising a question concerning this law, but since you bring it up, I comment as follows:
First of al, l this law covers everything from soup to nuts, which automatically makes it a bad law. It certainly should not be readdressed and reissued year after year. If we want to put some time limits and dollar amounts on military expenditures, it could likely be done much more directly and conveniently, without including all the "soups and nuts".
Of the multitude of items included in this silly law, you have chosen to fix on religious discrimination and chaplains, fight hard against moving Guantánamo Bay detainees to the US mainland, and opposing indefinite detention of US citizens.
These seem like good points, and I don't disagree with any of them. However, there are likely a number of others you could also take a stand on in this crazy omnibus law. Members of both houses of Congress know very little about the military, and it seems particularly silly for those members to impose various restrictions on military operations. To me, the main point is that Congress should authorize sufficient military funding to allow the military to do its job. This could easily be done by simple consultation between Congressional Subcommittees Chairmen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hopefully, in those discussions the Congressional Chairmen will be wise enough to not try to impose a number of miscellaneous restrictions, some of which may be related to military operations but others more of a organizational or cultural matter. We don't need that. As you know, Sen. Cruz, government has too heavy a hand in all aspects of civilian and military life. It must be cut back.
Dear Arthur,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Input from fellow Texans significantly informs my decision-making and empowers me to better represent the state.
The National Defense Reauthorization Act (NDAA) for 2014 passed the Senate, 84-15, and was signed into law on December 26, 2013. I voted against the bill and am deeply concerned about the administration's ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure that our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.
I am pleased, however, that this year's NDAA includes several significant bipartisan provisions aimed at strengthening religious liberty, modernizing our military justice system, and protecting our troops. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I offered numerous amendments to the NDAA during its consideration. Two of my amendments, one requiring an independent investigation into religious discrimination against troops practicing their beliefs and one ensuring an anonymous survey of chaplains regarding threats to their faith and work, were adopted by the Committee and included in the final bill. I supported the inclusion of language treating the Fort Hood terrorist attack as such, rather than "workplace violence," as well as language ensuring a State Department reward for help apprehending the Benghazi terrorists, though these provisions weren't included to the extent I preferred. I also fought for measures to prevent Guantanamo Bay detainees from being transported to the United States and to protect domestic military bases from unnecessary closure, but, unfortunately, these were not included in the final legislation. As we approach the 2015 reauthorization, I will continue to fight for these and other measures that keep our nation safe and basic rights secure.
Thank you for sharing your views with me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about any issue important to your family. It is an honor to serve you and the people of Texas.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Saturday, February 22, 2014
National Debt Versus Deficit and Ukraine
We have a comment from one of our political advisers concerning the national debt and. Ukraine as follows:
"Keep those debt figures "front and center" in the minds of the American people. NPR did a program yesterday in which they were clearly trying to confuse the listeners concerning the debt and the deficit. Once they had the average person thinking that the two words must represent the same figure, they proceeded to speak about the fact that since Obama has managed to reduce the deficit below a trillion, money isn't really a concern anymore.
Personally, I was happy to see that the European Union got involved with the situation in Ukraine in the last couple of days with their boundaries and their sanctions against Russia. I say we should let them deal with it."
"Keep those debt figures "front and center" in the minds of the American people. NPR did a program yesterday in which they were clearly trying to confuse the listeners concerning the debt and the deficit. Once they had the average person thinking that the two words must represent the same figure, they proceeded to speak about the fact that since Obama has managed to reduce the deficit below a trillion, money isn't really a concern anymore.
Personally, I was happy to see that the European Union got involved with the situation in Ukraine in the last couple of days with their boundaries and their sanctions against Russia. I say we should let them deal with it."
Sen. Cruz (TX) on Energy, Ukraine, and Marriage
Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the energy revolution, Ukraine violence, and the marriage bill. My comments with respect to yours are as follows:
Energy Revolution
I completely support any of your promotion actions in this area. Energy should be a matter of government policy, because it affects the national economy including jobs.
Ukraine Violence
I completely disagree with your implied US involvement in the Ukraine political situation. While I am sympathetic to those being killed and their families, it is none of our business. We have no justification for involvement and no money to do it. Remember the $17 trillion debt. I have previously written on the subject. An excerpt from that writing is, " In the first place, the Ukrainian people elected their present government. They wanted it, and they must suffer with it."
Marriage Bill
You have introduced enact anti-gay marriage bill, which is interpreted as.defending states' right to regulate marriage.
I completely disagree with your position on this, marriage is a cultural matter and neither the federal government, state government or local government should be involved. The only question should be whether there are certain financial benefits accruing to either same-sex or opposite sex marriages. In both cases, my opinion is that they should be none. Government has no right to discriminate on a cultural matter.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the energy revolution, Ukraine violence, and the marriage bill. My comments with respect to yours are as follows:
Energy Revolution
I completely support any of your promotion actions in this area. Energy should be a matter of government policy, because it affects the national economy including jobs.
Ukraine Violence
I completely disagree with your implied US involvement in the Ukraine political situation. While I am sympathetic to those being killed and their families, it is none of our business. We have no justification for involvement and no money to do it. Remember the $17 trillion debt. I have previously written on the subject. An excerpt from that writing is, " In the first place, the Ukrainian people elected their present government. They wanted it, and they must suffer with it."
Marriage Bill
You have introduced enact anti-gay marriage bill, which is interpreted as.defending states' right to regulate marriage.
I completely disagree with your position on this, marriage is a cultural matter and neither the federal government, state government or local government should be involved. The only question should be whether there are certain financial benefits accruing to either same-sex or opposite sex marriages. In both cases, my opinion is that they should be none. Government has no right to discriminate on a cultural matter.
Replace Headof Veterans Administration
Open Email to:
Jeff Miller, Chairman House Committee on Veterans Affairs Bernie Sanders, Chairman Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
Dear Chairmen Miller and Sanders,
Eric Shinseki has been doing a lousy job as head of the Veterans Administration and should be replaced immediately.
The latest fiasco is with veterans' hearing aids (Washington Times, Saturday, 2/22/14).
Jeff Miller, Chairman House Committee on Veterans Affairs Bernie Sanders, Chairman Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
Dear Chairmen Miller and Sanders,
Eric Shinseki has been doing a lousy job as head of the Veterans Administration and should be replaced immediately.
The latest fiasco is with veterans' hearing aids (Washington Times, Saturday, 2/22/14).
Friday, February 21, 2014
Violence in the Ukraine
Open Email to Congress:
Dear Representatives and Senators,
I again hear the US war drum beats! This time its concerns the Ukraine. The arguments go something like this: The Ukrainian government is killing its people. We have to do something about it. We must be on the side of the Ukrainian people. We must send them help. Should it be money, munitions, or our own soldiers. The Ukrainian government is friendly with Russia, who is our normal enemy. That's another reason we must be involved.
All of the above arguments are hogwash, as easily determined by a little practical analysis. In the first place, the Ukrainian people elected their present government. They wanted it, and they must suffer with it. If Ukrainian people now don't like their present government, that seems to me insufficient reason to start a civil shooting war. Similarly, the US electorate elected Obama as US President. There are bunch of us who don't like it, but we suffer with it. We make no attempt to physically overthrow him. The people wanted it. We suffer with it.
Then we have the grand strategists, who claim that the Ukrainian government plays footsies with the Russians, to the pleasure of the Russians, because the Russians want to reestablish the old former Soviet Union. Strategists say we don't want that, because it disturbs the balance of power. They want the Ukraine to be part of a so-called Western bloc of democracy. But again, look at what the Ukrainian people did. They voted for their present government and knew, or should have known, that it was partial to the Russians. Who are we, the US, to tell the Ukrainian people that they should have voted differently, and if they have apparently made a mistake, we are running to their rescue?
We got into stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably on the basis that it would have some effect to minimize terrorism in our homeland. That was a real stretch, which cost us billions of dollars and many lost American soldiers lives. Do we want to do this all over again in the Ukraine? When do we start to learn from our own experiences, not to say the experiences of others?
The fact is that we are broke and deeply in debt. Debtors have no real power, and any of our enemies recognize that. We used to be the primary power of the world, as were the English at one time, but we lost ground heavily as we were unable to control our own economy.
Dear Representatives and Senators,
I again hear the US war drum beats! This time its concerns the Ukraine. The arguments go something like this: The Ukrainian government is killing its people. We have to do something about it. We must be on the side of the Ukrainian people. We must send them help. Should it be money, munitions, or our own soldiers. The Ukrainian government is friendly with Russia, who is our normal enemy. That's another reason we must be involved.
All of the above arguments are hogwash, as easily determined by a little practical analysis. In the first place, the Ukrainian people elected their present government. They wanted it, and they must suffer with it. If Ukrainian people now don't like their present government, that seems to me insufficient reason to start a civil shooting war. Similarly, the US electorate elected Obama as US President. There are bunch of us who don't like it, but we suffer with it. We make no attempt to physically overthrow him. The people wanted it. We suffer with it.
Then we have the grand strategists, who claim that the Ukrainian government plays footsies with the Russians, to the pleasure of the Russians, because the Russians want to reestablish the old former Soviet Union. Strategists say we don't want that, because it disturbs the balance of power. They want the Ukraine to be part of a so-called Western bloc of democracy. But again, look at what the Ukrainian people did. They voted for their present government and knew, or should have known, that it was partial to the Russians. Who are we, the US, to tell the Ukrainian people that they should have voted differently, and if they have apparently made a mistake, we are running to their rescue?
We got into stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably on the basis that it would have some effect to minimize terrorism in our homeland. That was a real stretch, which cost us billions of dollars and many lost American soldiers lives. Do we want to do this all over again in the Ukraine? When do we start to learn from our own experiences, not to say the experiences of others?
The fact is that we are broke and deeply in debt. Debtors have no real power, and any of our enemies recognize that. We used to be the primary power of the world, as were the English at one time, but we lost ground heavily as we were unable to control our own economy.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Future of the Republican Party
Open email to Political Advisers with copy to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Political Advisers,
We have a report from one of the younger members of our Political Advisor Group, in which he paints a dire picture for the future of the Republican Party as follows:
" I realize I am likely in the minority on some issues, but if Republicans want to win elections and make real changes on a national level, we need to stop living in the past when it comes to social issues like gay marriage and marijuana use. I don't agree with either of those personally, but we have to separate personal opinion from law. The federal government should not be in the business of legislating morals. The evangelicals had their time influencing our party and now do more harm than good. They are not good for our party or our platform. How can the party of liberty and small government also be the party of telling people who they can marry and what they can put in their bodies? These inconsistencies are alarming to many voters. The future is true liberty-minded politics with a return to sound constitutional government. According to several recent polls, libertarian voters are the fastest growing segment in American politics and the Republican Party would be wise to listen to some of their ideas. They now make up 25% of the voting base overall, not just among registered Republicans. What people like me want to see from the Republican Party is a shift back toward the Constitution and individual liberty. If we don't get it from the Republican Party we will find it somewhere else. With the advent of the internet, knowledge is available to virtually everyone. Young voters are aware of the federal reserve and monetary policy and tax rates. Talking about being a good Christian family man is not reason enough to win my vote. I want to know that you will stand up and do the right thing in Washington and make real, painful, considerable cuts across the board. That includes social welfare programs, food stamps, farm subsidies, military industrial complex, the whole thing. 30% or more cuts across the board. Not 5% cut in proposed budget increases over the next 10 years."
As personal comment on the above, I see the danger of the shift of young knowledgeable people toward the Libertarian Party. If that occurs at the voting booth, it will split the non-Democrat vote, so that the Democrats will surely win, and the Republicans will be out, perhaps forever. Republican leadership must move now in the direction advised by our young Political Advisor or suffer the consequences.
Republican leadership in the House must move now in the direction of heavy budget cuts. While that would involve a theoretical risk of losing votes, because of subsidy and job cuts, those affected would mostly be voting Democrat anyhow. It is worth the risk, because Republicans will lose without it.
Dear Political Advisers,
We have a report from one of the younger members of our Political Advisor Group, in which he paints a dire picture for the future of the Republican Party as follows:
" I realize I am likely in the minority on some issues, but if Republicans want to win elections and make real changes on a national level, we need to stop living in the past when it comes to social issues like gay marriage and marijuana use. I don't agree with either of those personally, but we have to separate personal opinion from law. The federal government should not be in the business of legislating morals. The evangelicals had their time influencing our party and now do more harm than good. They are not good for our party or our platform. How can the party of liberty and small government also be the party of telling people who they can marry and what they can put in their bodies? These inconsistencies are alarming to many voters. The future is true liberty-minded politics with a return to sound constitutional government. According to several recent polls, libertarian voters are the fastest growing segment in American politics and the Republican Party would be wise to listen to some of their ideas. They now make up 25% of the voting base overall, not just among registered Republicans. What people like me want to see from the Republican Party is a shift back toward the Constitution and individual liberty. If we don't get it from the Republican Party we will find it somewhere else. With the advent of the internet, knowledge is available to virtually everyone. Young voters are aware of the federal reserve and monetary policy and tax rates. Talking about being a good Christian family man is not reason enough to win my vote. I want to know that you will stand up and do the right thing in Washington and make real, painful, considerable cuts across the board. That includes social welfare programs, food stamps, farm subsidies, military industrial complex, the whole thing. 30% or more cuts across the board. Not 5% cut in proposed budget increases over the next 10 years."
As personal comment on the above, I see the danger of the shift of young knowledgeable people toward the Libertarian Party. If that occurs at the voting booth, it will split the non-Democrat vote, so that the Democrats will surely win, and the Republicans will be out, perhaps forever. Republican leadership must move now in the direction advised by our young Political Advisor or suffer the consequences.
Republican leadership in the House must move now in the direction of heavy budget cuts. While that would involve a theoretical risk of losing votes, because of subsidy and job cuts, those affected would mostly be voting Democrat anyhow. It is worth the risk, because Republicans will lose without it.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Extending the National Debt Limit
Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
You have claimed to have done the "right thing" in the recent Senate vote on raising the debt limit.
However, I have a converse opinion from one of my Political Associates, which is as follows:
"The vote was 'Lost' in the cloture vote. Senator Cruz was prepared to filibuster the bill, but all the democrats along with 2 or 3 Republicans voted for cloture. This left the vote for cloture 2 short of the 60 required. Harry Reid extended the vote time and inside 2 minutes left, McConnell and Cornyn rode in and became the 59th and 60th vote. Then with the cover of the 60th vote being made several other Republicans jumped in.
My understanding of this debt bill, it is unique in that it doesn't put a $ number, but rescinds the debt limit till March 2015. So between now and then Washington can spend with ZERO restrictions, and I expect they will. This is an Obama Dream.
Cornyn will truthfully be able to say he voted against the bill, but it came up to vote because McConnell and Cornyn (and the rest of the Republican Establishment) have NO legislative strategy or worse they have adopted Obama's strategy. I personally am finished with the Republican Party. I will not be voting for any incumbents, I see them as tainted by the Establishment. I will not give them a thin dime and tell them that every time they call for a donation.
Anyone who paves the path for Obama's success and the decline of American Freedom or even standing by doing nothing, I will not support. We are in the fight of our life and our children's future is at stake."
Sen. Cornyn, this is a key point on which many of us will choose to vote for or against you in the next election. The issue will not go away. We have long memories. I suggest you face up to it now, with a short, complete, and clear response which you believe justifies your action.
As I understand it you voted to allow the bill to come to a Senate vote, when you knew that in that subsequent vote, the Democratic majority would pass it. You then voted against the final bill as an act of bravado, when you knew it would have no effect on the outcome.
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
You have claimed to have done the "right thing" in the recent Senate vote on raising the debt limit.
However, I have a converse opinion from one of my Political Associates, which is as follows:
"The vote was 'Lost' in the cloture vote. Senator Cruz was prepared to filibuster the bill, but all the democrats along with 2 or 3 Republicans voted for cloture. This left the vote for cloture 2 short of the 60 required. Harry Reid extended the vote time and inside 2 minutes left, McConnell and Cornyn rode in and became the 59th and 60th vote. Then with the cover of the 60th vote being made several other Republicans jumped in.
My understanding of this debt bill, it is unique in that it doesn't put a $ number, but rescinds the debt limit till March 2015. So between now and then Washington can spend with ZERO restrictions, and I expect they will. This is an Obama Dream.
Cornyn will truthfully be able to say he voted against the bill, but it came up to vote because McConnell and Cornyn (and the rest of the Republican Establishment) have NO legislative strategy or worse they have adopted Obama's strategy. I personally am finished with the Republican Party. I will not be voting for any incumbents, I see them as tainted by the Establishment. I will not give them a thin dime and tell them that every time they call for a donation.
Anyone who paves the path for Obama's success and the decline of American Freedom or even standing by doing nothing, I will not support. We are in the fight of our life and our children's future is at stake."
Sen. Cornyn, this is a key point on which many of us will choose to vote for or against you in the next election. The issue will not go away. We have long memories. I suggest you face up to it now, with a short, complete, and clear response which you believe justifies your action.
As I understand it you voted to allow the bill to come to a Senate vote, when you knew that in that subsequent vote, the Democratic majority would pass it. You then voted against the final bill as an act of bravado, when you knew it would have no effect on the outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
