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.