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.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Saturday, July 12, 2014
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.
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.
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.
Friday, July 11, 2014
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
